[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D95947: [lldb] [Process/FreeBSDRemote] Introduce powerpc support

mgorny updated this revision to Diff 321966. mgorny edited the summary of this revision. mgorny added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: arichardson. Fixed breakpoints and FPR reading. Now it's actually tested ;-). CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D95947/new/ https://revi

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D96095: [lldb] Use assertIn/NotIn over assertTrue/False (NFC)

This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds. This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG3cc37622921f: [lldb] Use assertIn/NotIn over assertTrue/False (NFC) (authored by kastiglione). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] 3cc3762 - [lldb] Use assertIn/NotIn over assertTrue/False (NFC)

Author: Dave Lee Date: 2021-02-06T11:52:01-08:00 New Revision: 3cc37622921f39e4bdad7a37b7199defa58a213a URL: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3cc37622921f39e4bdad7a37b7199defa58a213a DIFF: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3cc37622921f39e4bdad7a37b7199defa58a213a.diff LOG:

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D95802: [lldb] [Process/FreeBSDRemote] Introduce mips64 support

labath added a comment. In D95802#2546809 , @mgorny wrote: > In D95802#2546786 , @labath wrote: > >> It doesn't look //too// bad, but what's up with the `friend` thingy? What's >> that used for? Can we get rid of i

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D96202: [lldb/test] Automatically find debug servers to test

labath added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/tools/lldb-server/lldbgdbserverutils.py:75-79 -if "LLDB_DEBUGSERVER_PATH" in os.environ: -return os.environ["LLDB_DEBUGSERVER_PATH"] -return _get_debug_monitor_from_lldb( -lld

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D96201: [nfc] [lldb] Add Dwo assert

labath added a comment. Hm... I'm not sure about that... I mean, there's not much use for it, and we probably aren't doing anything like that right now, but I don't see anything inherently wrong about querying a skeleton unit for a DIE (even though it should only contain the root die). Reposi

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D95802: [lldb] [Process/FreeBSDRemote] Introduce mips64 support

mgorny added a comment. In D95802#2546786 , @labath wrote: > It doesn't look //too// bad, but what's up with the `friend` thingy? What's > that used for? Can we get rid of it? It's needed to access `SetSoftwareBreakpoint()`, though I'm not really sure wh

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D96202: [lldb/test] Automatically find debug servers to test

labath created this revision. labath added reviewers: JDevlieghere, rupprecht. Herald added a subscriber: mgorny. labath requested review of this revision. Herald added a project: LLDB. Our test configuration logic assumes that the tests can be run either with debugserver or with lldb-server. This

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D96201: [nfc] [lldb] Add Dwo assert

jankratochvil created this revision. jankratochvil added a reviewer: labath. jankratochvil added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: JDevlieghere. jankratochvil requested review of this revision. I had it in my local patchset and I did not want to drop it, OK for check-in? Repository:

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D95802: [lldb] [Process/FreeBSDRemote] Introduce mips64 support

labath added a comment. It doesn't look //too// bad, but what's up with the `friend` thingy? What's that used for? Can we get rid of it? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D95802/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D95802 ___ lldb-commit

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D96176: Implement jAttachWait

labath added a comment. I'm not sure this new functionality is really worth the new packet (or two), but if it solves a use case you care about, then I suppose that's fine. One alternative could be to just tack on some extra data to the existing vAttach family packets (`vAttachWait;foo;interva

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D96194: Defer the decision whether to use the CU or TU index until after reading the unit header.

labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Nice catch. Regarding the implementation, I think it might be slightly cleaner (and slightly more consistent with the llvm dwarf parser) if the index handling has moved to the DWARFUnit class

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D92643: [lldb] Lookup static const members in FindGlobalVariables

werat added a comment. Thanks for reviewing! In D92643#2546732 , @jankratochvil wrote: > @werat I see you are aware of D81471 . Do > you or someone else have anything against it? I find it more integrated using > the cl

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D92223: [lldb] Add support for looking up static const members

werat added a comment. In D92223#2546736 , @jankratochvil wrote: > This patch may be superseded by D92643 , not > sure. Yeah, D92643 is an alternative way to implement this, according t

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D92223: [lldb] Add support for looking up static const members

jankratochvil added a comment. This patch may be superseded by D92643 , not sure. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D92223/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92223 __

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D92643: [lldb] Lookup static const members in FindGlobalVariables

jankratochvil added a comment. @werat I see you are aware of D81471 . Do you or someone else have anything against it? I find it more integrated using the clang type for it but I admit I do not understand the clang integration much. At least it handles more case