@@ -989,6 +989,14 @@ uint32_t Platform::FindProcesses(const
ProcessInstanceInfoMatch &match_info,
return match_count;
}
+ProcessInstanceInfoList Platform::GetAllProcesses() {
+ ProcessInstanceInfoList processes;
+ ProcessInstanceInfoMatch match;
+ assert(match.MatchAllPr
https://github.com/JDevlieghere updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68378
>From 450be6e0e3e7b9b13f7674fbade9c5ce3bce9d97 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jonas Devlieghere
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 21:07:03 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [lldb] Expose SBPlatform::GetAllProcesses to the SB API
@@ -989,6 +989,14 @@ uint32_t Platform::FindProcesses(const
ProcessInstanceInfoMatch &match_info,
return match_count;
}
+ProcessInstanceInfoList Platform::GetAllProcesses() {
+ ProcessInstanceInfoList processes;
+ ProcessInstanceInfoMatch match;
+ assert(match.MatchAllPr
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+//===-- SBProcessInfoList.cpp -===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 W
https://github.com/bulbazord approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68378
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+//===-- SBProcessInfoList.cpp -===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 W
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+//===-- SBProcessInfoList.h -*- C++ -*-===//
medismailben wrote:
This is missing from ``
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68378
___
lldb-commits mailing list
l
@@ -989,6 +989,14 @@ uint32_t Platform::FindProcesses(const
ProcessInstanceInfoMatch &match_info,
return match_count;
}
+ProcessInstanceInfoList Platform::GetAllProcesses() {
+ ProcessInstanceInfoList processes;
+ ProcessInstanceInfoMatch match;
+ assert(match.MatchAllPr
https://github.com/medismailben edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68378
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+//===-- SBProcessInfoList.cpp -===//
medismailben wrote:
same, missing some `---`
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68378
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb
https://github.com/medismailben approved this pull request.
LGTM with some comments
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68378
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb
Changes
Add the ability to list all processes through the SB API.
rdar://116188959
---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68378.diff
15 Files Affected:
- (modified) lldb/bindings/headers.swig (+1)
- (added) lldb/bindings/inter
https://github.com/JDevlieghere created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68378
Add the ability to list all processes through the SB API.
rdar://116188959
>From 8611bebd2b6cd4f6de797240c1cb184af71f384d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jonas Devlieghere
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 21:07:03 -07
https://github.com/aartbik updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68360
>From 6094912685a0cfa5c13e023e8ec97238a84fca2f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aart Bik
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 13:22:28 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [mlir][sparse] introduce MapRef, unify conversion/codegen
for read
https://github.com/walter-erquinigo closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68013
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
Author: Walter Erquinigo
Date: 2023-10-05T20:17:48-04:00
New Revision: 87c6ff6da82a1288ce5c80370d5d8cdd4c20220d
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/87c6ff6da82a1288ce5c80370d5d8cdd4c20220d
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/87c6ff6da82a1288ce5c80370d5d8cdd4c20220d.di
walter-erquinigo wrote:
Thanks!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68013
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
jimingham wrote:
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68013
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/adrian-prantl approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68300
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/bulbazord approved this pull request.
The warnings look good to me, thanks for taking care of that.
How does this look @jimingham?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68013
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm
https://github.com/walter-erquinigo approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68347
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb
Changes
There are only ever 2 FilterRules and their operations are either "regex" or
"match". This does not benefit from deduplication since the strings have static
lifetime and we can just compare StringRefs pointing to them. This is also not
on
https://github.com/bulbazord created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68347
There are only ever 2 FilterRules and their operations are either "regex" or
"match". This does not benefit from deduplication since the strings have static
lifetime and we can just compare StringRefs pointing
https://github.com/shraiysh updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67723
>From 6aabc3c10ea2d587120b74966b7ce96f9b8167af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Shraiysh Vaishay
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:35:07 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] [OpenMPIRBuilder] Remove wrapper function in `createTask`
@@ -340,6 +340,44 @@ BasicBlock *llvm::splitBBWithSuffix(IRBuilderBase
&Builder, bool CreateBranch,
return splitBB(Builder, CreateBranch, Old->getName() + Suffix);
}
+// This function creates a fake integer value and a fake use for the integer
+// value. It returns the fake
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
Basically LGTM, but I think this is still missing negative tests for
non-equality pred1/pred2?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65852
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.o
rampitec wrote:
> I've taken another look at this. The patch does not show any benefit from
> running another `SIFoldOperands` pass _after_ `SIShrinkInstructions` per se;
> you get exactly the same results (modulo a couple of add instructions that
> have their operands commuted differently) if
goldsteinn wrote:
Continue to LGTM...
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65852
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
jimingham wrote:
I don't know what the status of lldb-mi is, but lldb-vscode which does the same
job (be a DAP server) is under active development. So "this adaptor doesn't
use the better method to do X" shouldn't be a reason to not employ the better
method. We should just fix the adaptors.
https://github.com/christiankissig updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67788
>From 5d86936c3a48c613460983c980271fcab8128b75 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Christian Kissig
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 12:18:59 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [Support] Add KnownBits::computeForSubBorrow
* Im
https://github.com/Michael137 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68300
>From 30ef50b808a8458a60bbd3cdc52b866ee296b6ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michael Buch
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 12:13:12 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [lldb][DWARFASTParserClang] Check DW_AT_declaration to
dete
github-actions[bot] wrote:
:warning: C/C++ code formatter, clang-format found issues in your code.
:warning:
You can test this locally with the following command:
``bash
git-clang-format --diff 777a6e6f10b2b90496d248b7fa904fce834484be
30ef50b808a8458a60bbd3cdc52b866ee296b6ba --
https://github.com/Michael137 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68300
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/Michael137 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68300
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/Michael137 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68300
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb
Changes
**Background**
Prior to DWARFv4, there was no clear normative text on how to handle static
data members. Non-normative text suggested we compilers should use
`DW_AT_external` to mark static data members of structrues/unions. Clang does
th
Michael137 wrote:
Alternatively, we could start checking `DW_AT_external` again, at the cost of
not supporting some GCC cases pre-DWARFv5
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68300
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https:/
https://github.com/Michael137 created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68300
**Background**
Prior to DWARFv4, there was no clear normative text on how to handle static
data members. Non-normative text suggested we compilers should use
`DW_AT_external` to mark static data members of s
dtcxzyw wrote:
Ping.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65852
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
jayfoad wrote:
I've taken another look at this. The patch does not show any benefit from
running another `SIFoldOperands` pass _after_ `SIShrinkInstructions` per se;
you get exactly the same results (modulo a couple of add instructions that have
their operands commuted differently) if you put
@@ -340,6 +340,44 @@ BasicBlock *llvm::splitBBWithSuffix(IRBuilderBase
&Builder, bool CreateBranch,
return splitBB(Builder, CreateBranch, Old->getName() + Suffix);
}
+// This function creates a fake integer value and a fake use for the integer
+// value. It returns the fake
https://github.com/kiranchandramohan edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67723
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
@@ -5748,6 +5758,7 @@ OpenMPIRBuilder::createTeams(const LocationDescription
&Loc,
BasicBlock *BodyBB = splitBB(Builder, /*CreateBranch=*/true,
"teams.entry");
Builder.SetInsertPoint(BodyBB, BodyBB->begin());
}
+ InsertPointTy OuterAllocaIP(&OuterAllocaBB, OuterAll
@@ -340,6 +340,44 @@ BasicBlock *llvm::splitBBWithSuffix(IRBuilderBase
&Builder, bool CreateBranch,
return splitBB(Builder, CreateBranch, Old->getName() + Suffix);
}
+// This function creates a fake integer value and a fake use for the integer
+// value. It returns the fake
https://github.com/Michael137 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68231
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
Author: Michael Buch
Date: 2023-10-05T10:49:42+01:00
New Revision: 3a35ca01fc55f27315d1652ec1dedff10e79918b
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3a35ca01fc55f27315d1652ec1dedff10e79918b
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3a35ca01fc55f27315d1652ec1dedff10e79918b.diff
DavidSpickett wrote:
Some general comments but otherwise I followed the instructions myself and it
worked fine.
I'll let @clayborg give the final ok, since I am new to this stuff.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68234
___
lldb-commits maili
kpdev wrote:
> BTW, I have no problem with the general direction of this change. It makes a
> lot more sense to ask a synthetic child provider to change a value - since it
> does represent the value of the ValueObject - rather than the summary which
> is just some free-form text. And being abl
kpdev wrote:
> What is it about this change that is defeating the ValueObject printer from
> compressing this output onto one line? It looks like the contents that get
> printed are the same, so there's something about switching from a Summary
> provider to a child provider that's causing prob
kpdev wrote:
> This seems like a somewhat limited way to poke a character into the value if
> the string has more than one character already in it.
>
> If you are trying to do more fancy setting of the contents of an SBValue,
> then it would be more straightforward to get the SBData for the va
50 matches
Mail list logo
