https://github.com/bulbazord edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65822
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
@@ -3156,23 +3156,22 @@ Status Process::Halt(bool clear_thread_plans, bool
use_run_lock) {
// case it was already set and some thread plan logic calls halt on its own.
m_clear_thread_plans_on_stop |= clear_thread_plans;
- ListenerSP halt_listener_sp(
- Listener::Mak
bulbazord wrote:
> This is in reply to Alex's comment about why we keep the process around, but
> the quote this reply didn't seem to work...
>
> After a process exits you might still want to ask it what its exit status
> was. Plus there might be other system accounting we've gathered for that
https://github.com/bulbazord resolved
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65822
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
@@ -12,10 +12,13 @@ int main(int argc, char const *argv[]) {
// Waiting to be attached by the debugger.
temp = 0;
+if (argc > 1 && argv[1][0] == 'q')
+ return 0;
+
while (temp < 30) {
-std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(2)); // Wa
Jianhui-Li wrote:
> > We really just need a "mlir-runner" with target-platform as command
> > parameters.
>
> What kind of "target-platform" command parameters do you have in mind? (other
> than what we do now)
The current way of mlir-cpu-runner using the share library name to indicate
targe
jimingham wrote:
>
After a process exits you might still want to ask it what its exit status was.
Plus there might be other system accounting we've gathered for that process.
So until you replace it with another process, you very well might want to ask
questions of it. So we can't just de
@@ -3156,23 +3156,22 @@ Status Process::Halt(bool clear_thread_plans, bool
use_run_lock) {
// case it was already set and some thread plan logic calls halt on its own.
m_clear_thread_plans_on_stop |= clear_thread_plans;
- ListenerSP halt_listener_sp(
- Listener::Mak
@@ -12,10 +12,13 @@ int main(int argc, char const *argv[]) {
// Waiting to be attached by the debugger.
temp = 0;
+if (argc > 1 && argv[1][0] == 'q')
+ return 0;
+
while (temp < 30) {
-std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(2)); // Wa
jasonmolenda updated this revision to Diff 556327.
jasonmolenda added a comment.
All of the feedback is addressed at this point. I had one decision I didn't
like - the LC_NOTE has an explicit size in the load command, but I said that
the JSON string needed to be nul byte ('\0') terminated, whic
@@ -127,3 +128,61 @@ def tearDown(self):
# Call super's tearDown().
TestBase.tearDown(self)
+
+def test_run_then_attach_wait_interrupt(self):
+# Test that having run one process doesn't cause us to be unable
+# to interrupt a
https://github.com/jimingham updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65822:
>From e98672b9f4b02c2baac5ed5dcd94afa9a78e35b6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Ingham
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 16:18:48 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Fix a bug with cancelling "attach -w" after you have run
a pr
@@ -12,10 +12,13 @@ int main(int argc, char const *argv[]) {
// Waiting to be attached by the debugger.
temp = 0;
+if (argc > 1 && argv[1][0] == 'q')
+ return 0;
+
while (temp < 30) {
-std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(2)); // Wa
@@ -3156,23 +3156,22 @@ Status Process::Halt(bool clear_thread_plans, bool
use_run_lock) {
// case it was already set and some thread plan logic calls halt on its own.
m_clear_thread_plans_on_stop |= clear_thread_plans;
- ListenerSP halt_listener_sp(
- Listener::Mak
@@ -127,3 +128,61 @@ def tearDown(self):
# Call super's tearDown().
TestBase.tearDown(self)
+
+def test_run_then_attach_wait_interrupt(self):
+# Test that having run one process doesn't cause us to be unable
+# to interrupt a
@@ -2996,10 +2996,22 @@ void
CommandInterpreter::FindCommandsForApropos(llvm::StringRef search_word,
m_alias_dict);
}
-ExecutionContext CommandInterpreter::GetExecutionContext() const {
- return !m_overriden_exe_contexts.empty()
- ? m_o
https://github.com/bulbazord edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65822
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/bulbazord commented:
Idea seems good to me. I have similar concerns to Adrian but overall I think
I'm on board with this idea. I'm kind of confused why we don't destroy the old
Process object after it's exited though, wouldn't properly cleaning up after
ourselves solve a lot
@@ -127,3 +128,61 @@ def tearDown(self):
# Call super's tearDown().
TestBase.tearDown(self)
+
+def test_run_then_attach_wait_interrupt(self):
+# Test that having run one process doesn't cause us to be unable
+# to interrupt a
@@ -127,3 +128,61 @@ def tearDown(self):
# Call super's tearDown().
TestBase.tearDown(self)
+
+def test_run_then_attach_wait_interrupt(self):
+# Test that having run one process doesn't cause us to be unable
+# to interrupt a
@@ -127,3 +128,61 @@ def tearDown(self):
# Call super's tearDown().
TestBase.tearDown(self)
+
+def test_run_then_attach_wait_interrupt(self):
+# Test that having run one process doesn't cause us to be unable
+# to interrupt a
@@ -2996,10 +2996,22 @@ void
CommandInterpreter::FindCommandsForApropos(llvm::StringRef search_word,
m_alias_dict);
}
-ExecutionContext CommandInterpreter::GetExecutionContext() const {
- return !m_overriden_exe_contexts.empty()
- ? m_o
@@ -2996,10 +2996,22 @@ void
CommandInterpreter::FindCommandsForApropos(llvm::StringRef search_word,
m_alias_dict);
}
-ExecutionContext CommandInterpreter::GetExecutionContext() const {
- return !m_overriden_exe_contexts.empty()
- ? m_o
https://github.com/github-actions[bot] labeled
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65822
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/jimingham created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65822:
The problem is that the when the "attach" command is initiated, the
ExecutionContext for the command has a process - it's the exited one from the
previour run. But the `attach wait` creates a new process for
https://github.com/jimingham review_requested
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65822
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/jimingham review_requested
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65822
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/jimingham review_requested
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65822
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/jimingham review_requested
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65822
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
jasonmolenda added inline comments.
Comment at: lldb/tools/debugserver/source/RNBRemote.cpp:780
PThreadMutex::Locker locker(m_mutex);
if (m_rx_packets.empty()) {
JDevlieghere wrote:
> This is an RAII object, right? Can we just block scope it? Right now it
walter-erquinigo wrote:
@clayborg , do you get notifications when I update the PR? :) I'm still getting
used to github for llvm.
In any case, this is ready for review.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-
https://github.com/walter-erquinigo updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65687:
>From 4d563d5542291c4b386caaad1f6f4c18f4c7bfd1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: walter erquinigo
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 18:35:10 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] [lldb-vscode] Make descriptive summaries and raw chil
https://github.com/walter-erquinigo resolved
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/walter-erquinigo resolved
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/walter-erquinigo resolved
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/walter-erquinigo resolved
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/walter-erquinigo resolved
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
@@ -40,7 +40,8 @@ VSCode::VSCode()
{"swift_catch", "Swift Catch", lldb::eLanguageTypeSwift},
{"swift_throw", "Swift Throw", lldb::eLanguageTypeSwift}}),
focus_tid(LLDB_INVALID_THREAD_ID), sent_terminated_event(false),
- stop_at_entry(false), is_
@@ -40,7 +40,8 @@ VSCode::VSCode()
{"swift_catch", "Swift Catch", lldb::eLanguageTypeSwift},
{"swift_throw", "Swift Throw", lldb::eLanguageTypeSwift}}),
focus_tid(LLDB_INVALID_THREAD_ID), sent_terminated_event(false),
- stop_at_entry(false), is_
@@ -240,6 +240,16 @@
"timeout": {
"type":
"string",
"description":
"The time in seconds to wait
@@ -240,6 +240,16 @@
"timeout": {
"type":
"string",
"description":
"The time in seconds to wait
@@ -240,6 +240,16 @@
"timeout": {
"type":
"string",
"description":
"The time in seconds to wait
@@ -240,6 +240,16 @@
"timeout": {
"type":
"string",
"description":
"The time in seconds to wait
https://github.com/clayborg requested changes to this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/clayborg edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65687
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
jimingham wrote:
Just to make sure there's no confusion... The reason that `b` completes to
`__regex_break` is that we always prefer exact matches in completion. Since we
did:
`command alias b __regex_break
`
then `b` should only complete to the `b` alias. That makes sense, since
executin
https://github.com/DavidSpickett closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65760
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
Author: David Spickett
Date: 2023-09-08T17:08:02+01:00
New Revision: 0f1a01807c137736236fcb9ea4253804e5ec7cf8
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0f1a01807c137736236fcb9ea4253804e5ec7cf8
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0f1a01807c137736236fcb9ea4253804e5ec7cf8.diff
https://github.com/JDevlieghere approved this pull request.
LGTM. We can update the test when we fix the behavior.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65760
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin
JDevlieghere wrote:
+1. As Jim pointed out, we use them ourselves internally, so to me the
distinction sounds like an implementation detail and should be transparent for
completion.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65760
___
lldb-commits ma
DavidSpickett wrote:
That was my first assumption, that they were all in one pool of commands for
completion. Then I thought maybe it had been setup this way to protect the
built-ins somehow. Given it wasn't tested it may not have been intentionally
implemented that way.
If people agree that
jimingham wrote:
The test is okay, but this seems like confusing behavior to me. Most people
who use lldb don't set up command aliases and aren't really aware of which
commands are aliases and which are built-in commands. So treating them
differently seems wrong to me. If you have a `br` al
DavidSpickett added a comment.
I've taken the liberty of landing it for you with the details from your last
commit.
Thanks again, we'll try not to take 3 months to review a simple fix next time :)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D1516
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rG9ce82a10a322: Wrong link target in the documentation #62990
(authored by eddiep24, committed by DavidSpickett).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/
Author: Author: Eddie Phillips
Date: 2023-09-08T15:38:28+01:00
New Revision: 9ce82a10a32203746cef70541de4807fb5c008a5
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/9ce82a10a32203746cef70541de4807fb5c008a5
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/9ce82a10a32203746cef70541de4807fb5c00
DavidSpickett accepted this revision.
DavidSpickett added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Sorry this got completely lost, built the HTML locally and the result is as
expected. LGTM.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.ll
Author: David Spickett
Date: 2023-09-08T14:10:08Z
New Revision: f2b241474f21cd549c233f020021d41bb803f18a
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/f2b241474f21cd549c233f020021d41bb803f18a
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/f2b241474f21cd549c233f020021d41bb803f18a.diff
LOG
DavidSpickett wrote:
This just documents the status quo - but, I'd like to confirm this is expected
and desirable behaviour, hence the review.
Seems fine to me as it does prevent the user causing some kinds of chaos.
`breakpoint` is perhaps just a bad example because it has the single letter
https://github.com/github-actions[bot] labeled
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65760
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/DavidSpickett review_requested
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65760
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/DavidSpickett created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65760:
While looking at https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/49528 I found
that, happily, aliases can now be tab completed.
However, if there is a built-in match that will always be taken. Which is a bit
https://github.com/zero9178 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65730
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/zero9178 resolved
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65730
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/zero9178 resolved
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65730
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/zero9178 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65730:
From d32d6c5faca4141120482b7346c75f6656a29299 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Markus=20B=C3=B6ck?=
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2023 11:16:22 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [mlir][LLVM] Model side effects of volatile
Author: David Spickett
Date: 2023-09-08T09:56:42Z
New Revision: f98ca79c7bef98ab9781555af49eb730d3637771
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/f98ca79c7bef98ab9781555af49eb730d3637771
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/f98ca79c7bef98ab9781555af49eb730d3637771.diff
LOG
https://github.com/DavidSpickett closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65635
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
Author: David Spickett
Date: 2023-09-08T10:05:16+01:00
New Revision: 3398744a6106c83993611bd3c5e79ec6b94417dc
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3398744a6106c83993611bd3c5e79ec6b94417dc
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3398744a6106c83993611bd3c5e79ec6b94417dc.diff
https://github.com/DavidSpickett resolved
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65635
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
@@ -258,3 +263,302 @@ then ``lldb B`` to trigger ``lldb-server B`` to go into
that code and hit the
breakpoint. ``lldb-server A`` is only here to let us debug ``lldb-server B``
remotely.
+Debugging The Remote Protocol
+-
+
+LLDB mostly follows the
https://github.com/DavidSpickett updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65635:
>From 7c511c4beb3258894a5b9ceb884b5469b00368c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Spickett
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:05:36 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [lldb][Docs] Additions to debuging LLDB page
Adds the
Author: Pavel Labath
Date: 2023-09-08T10:17:16+02:00
New Revision: d4c3c2872ff6acd75ee3e0083fa62b2a1cc5310c
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d4c3c2872ff6acd75ee3e0083fa62b2a1cc5310c
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d4c3c2872ff6acd75ee3e0083fa62b2a1cc5310c.diff
DavidSpickett added a comment.
From what I gather, split dwarf isn't a thing on Darwin so I've relanded with
the tests skipped
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b1f14d647300b0ed003fa7c24af311b11605d009).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://revi
Author: David Spickett
Date: 2023-09-08T08:15:08Z
New Revision: b1f14d647300b0ed003fa7c24af311b11605d009
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b1f14d647300b0ed003fa7c24af311b11605d009
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b1f14d647300b0ed003fa7c24af311b11605d009.diff
LOG
Author: David Spickett
Date: 2023-09-08T08:00:38Z
New Revision: dc3f758ddc9b76b1a1d3e63147521e56906fd7a4
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/dc3f758ddc9b76b1a1d3e63147521e56906fd7a4
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/dc3f758ddc9b76b1a1d3e63147521e56906fd7a4.diff
LOG
DavidSpickett added a comment.
In the interests of not being caught by the impeding shutdown at the end of the
month, this is where we're at with this:
I'm interested in the test suite results, but mostly for context of where this
support is at, and not to block this. If it shows up bugs in
any
https://github.com/lixi-zhou updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65696:
>From eacec22651766c6c6961d14964ddb6a180fbfec0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lixi Zhou
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:15:25 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] fix failed ompt test on M1 device
---
openmp/runtime/test/omp
77 matches
Mail list logo
