https://github.com/JDevlieghere approved this pull request.
I'm happy if Jason is happy!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83099
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-comm
https://github.com/jasonmolenda approved this pull request.
LGTM, let's land this patch. I will extend the stub version packet with
additional fields (Jonas points out that other stubs implement this packet
already as-is) and update this once that PR is approved and merged. But we
don't need
@@ -694,27 +712,32 @@ void CommandObject::GenerateHelpText(Stream &output_strm)
{
}
}
-void CommandObject::AddIDsArgumentData(CommandArgumentEntry &arg,
- CommandArgumentType ID,
- CommandArgumentTy
https://github.com/medismailben edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83097
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/medismailben approved this pull request.
This looks great! Left a comment.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83097
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb
jasonmolenda wrote:
I'm not fishing for Adrian to dig in to that, I'm happy to make the change.
but I'm curious what @JDevlieghere and @adrian-prantl think, if it's worth
changing this packet. It's not used anywhere yet, so overhauling it now
before/shortly after we actually start using it,
jasonmolenda wrote:
I'm a little split because the current packet is not super useful as it's
constructed today - I'd really like to see a domain or vendor along with a
version number And instead of a simple number, maybe a major/minor version
number and/or a version string? I'm also fine wi
https://github.com/adrian-prantl updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83099
>From 6f74b0bd4cfb3aacf42b9b65a019dba425c7d18e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Adrian Prantl
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:50:27 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] Make the workaround for older debugserver versions more
na
https://github.com/adrian-prantl updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83099
>From f26292e7db372380fab4fd83f9df79a5b8929772 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Adrian Prantl
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:43:57 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] Aim debugserver workaround more precisely.
---
.../gdb-re
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb
Author: Adrian Prantl (adrian-prantl)
Changes
---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83099.diff
2 Files Affected:
- (modified)
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationClient.cpp (+14-1)
- (modified) lldb
https://github.com/adrian-prantl created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83099
None
>From 1b020afcb50cd6059bbe2ab26779ed6d3e7c2f7a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Adrian Prantl
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:43:57 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] Aim debugserver workaround more precisely.
---
.../
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 dc06d75ab27b4dcae2940fc386fadd06f70faffe
2ed71038d9d16a09b3a04cf667dd272c911fef23 --
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb
Author: None (jimingham)
Changes
Partly, there's just a lot of unnecessary boiler plate. It's also possible to
define combinations of arguments that make no sense (e.g. eArgRepeatPlus
followed by eArgRepeatPlain...) but these are never checked si
https://github.com/jimingham created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83097
Partly, there's just a lot of unnecessary boiler plate. It's also possible to
define combinations of arguments that make no sense (e.g. eArgRepeatPlus
followed by eArgRepeatPlain...) but these are never check
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb
Author: Jason Molenda (jasonmolenda)
Changes
I'm reviving a patch from phabracator, https://reviews.llvm.org/D155905 which
was approved but I wasn't thrilled with all the API I was adding to SBProcess
for all of the address mask types / memory reg
https://github.com/jasonmolenda created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83095
I'm reviving a patch from phabracator, https://reviews.llvm.org/D155905 which
was approved but I wasn't thrilled with all the API I was adding to SBProcess
for all of the address mask types / memory regions
https://github.com/felipepiovezan approved this pull request.
LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83086
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
@@ -1433,11 +1434,30 @@ void Debugger::SetDestroyCallback(
static void PrivateReportProgress(Debugger &debugger, uint64_t progress_id,
std::string title, std::string details,
uint64_t completed, uint64_t total,
https://github.com/jimingham approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83086
___
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
Author: Alex Langford (bulbazord)
Changes
This updates the remaining SetOptionValue methods in CommandObjectBreakpoint to
use CreateOptionParsingError.
I found a few minor bugs that were fixed during this refactor (e.g. using the
wrong flag in an
https://github.com/bulbazord created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83086
This updates the remaining SetOptionValue methods in CommandObjectBreakpoint to
use CreateOptionParsingError.
I found a few minor bugs that were fixed during this refactor (e.g. using the
wrong flag in an err
https://github.com/chelcassanova edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83069
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
@@ -1433,11 +1434,30 @@ void Debugger::SetDestroyCallback(
static void PrivateReportProgress(Debugger &debugger, uint64_t progress_id,
std::string title, std::string details,
uint64_t completed, uint64_t total,
@@ -1433,11 +1434,30 @@ void Debugger::SetDestroyCallback(
static void PrivateReportProgress(Debugger &debugger, uint64_t progress_id,
std::string title, std::string details,
uint64_t completed, uint64_t total,
https://github.com/JDevlieghere closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/82295
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
Author: nikitalita
Date: 2024-02-26T15:05:02-08:00
New Revision: dc5dfc102ffc3b870f7565fb4a90d53b31ec92f8
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/dc5dfc102ffc3b870f7565fb4a90d53b31ec92f8
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/dc5dfc102ffc3b870f7565fb4a90d53b31ec92f8.diff
LO
JDevlieghere wrote:
> > LGTM. Let me know if you need someone to land this for you
>
> I do need someone to land this for me. People keep asking me that; Is there a
> way for me to apply for write access or something?
https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access
> > (and
nikitalita wrote:
> LGTM. Let me know if you need someone to land this for you
I do need someone to land this for me. People keep asking me that; Is there a
way for me to apply for write access or something?
> (and if you want to [set your e-mail address to
> public](https://github.com/set
@@ -593,6 +593,7 @@ class Debugger : public
std::enable_shared_from_this,
friend class CommandInterpreter;
friend class REPL;
friend class Progress;
+ friend class ProgressManager;
chelcassanova wrote:
`Debugger::ReportProgress` is protected, so to my
https://github.com/JDevlieghere approved this pull request.
LGTM. Let me know if you need someone to land this for you (and if you want to
[set your e-mail address to public](https://github.com/settings/emails) before
that).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/82295
@@ -1433,11 +1434,30 @@ void Debugger::SetDestroyCallback(
static void PrivateReportProgress(Debugger &debugger, uint64_t progress_id,
std::string title, std::string details,
uint64_t completed, uint64_t total,
@@ -1433,11 +1434,30 @@ void Debugger::SetDestroyCallback(
static void PrivateReportProgress(Debugger &debugger, uint64_t progress_id,
std::string title, std::string details,
uint64_t completed, uint64_t total,
@@ -97,12 +98,32 @@ class Progress {
/// Used to indicate a non-deterministic progress report
static constexpr uint64_t kNonDeterministicTotal = UINT64_MAX;
+ /// Use a struct to send data from a Progress object to
+ /// ProgressManager::ReportProgress. In addition to th
@@ -1433,11 +1434,30 @@ void Debugger::SetDestroyCallback(
static void PrivateReportProgress(Debugger &debugger, uint64_t progress_id,
std::string title, std::string details,
uint64_t completed, uint64_t total,
@@ -97,12 +98,32 @@ class Progress {
/// Used to indicate a non-deterministic progress report
static constexpr uint64_t kNonDeterministicTotal = UINT64_MAX;
+ /// Use a struct to send data from a Progress object to
+ /// ProgressManager::ReportProgress. In addition to th
@@ -97,12 +98,32 @@ class Progress {
/// Used to indicate a non-deterministic progress report
static constexpr uint64_t kNonDeterministicTotal = UINT64_MAX;
+ /// Use a struct to send data from a Progress object to
+ /// ProgressManager::ReportProgress. In addition to th
@@ -97,12 +98,32 @@ class Progress {
/// Used to indicate a non-deterministic progress report
static constexpr uint64_t kNonDeterministicTotal = UINT64_MAX;
+ /// Use a struct to send data from a Progress object to
+ /// ProgressManager::ReportProgress. In addition to th
https://github.com/JDevlieghere requested changes to this pull request.
I think this is going in the right direction but I think the interaction
between the ProgressManager and the Debugger needs to change:
At a high level I'm expecting:
1. Progress object is created
2. Progress is added to th
@@ -626,7 +627,8 @@ class Debugger : public
std::enable_shared_from_this,
static void ReportProgress(uint64_t progress_id, std::string title,
std::string details, uint64_t completed,
uint64_t total,
-
@@ -593,6 +593,7 @@ class Debugger : public
std::enable_shared_from_this,
friend class CommandInterpreter;
friend class REPL;
friend class Progress;
+ friend class ProgressManager;
JDevlieghere wrote:
I don't think you need this (anymore)?
https://git
https://github.com/JDevlieghere edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83069
___
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
Author: Chelsea Cassanova (chelcassanova)
Changes
This commit adds the functionality to broadcast events using the
`Debugger::eBroadcastProgressCategory`
bit (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81169) by keeping track of these
reports with
https://github.com/chelcassanova created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83069
This commit adds the functionality to broadcast events using the
`Debugger::eBroadcastProgressCategory`
bit (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81169) by keeping track of these
reports with the `Pro
https://github.com/adrian-prantl closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/82938
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
adrian-prantl wrote:
Landed in 01450dd1c69d1edb0d01159352a56c99988839f4
f9f331652d4f0aff9ece3570abe8c686cdfefff4
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/82938
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/m
adrian-prantl wrote:
I also tested this with a rosetta process.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/82938
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
Author: Jonas Devlieghere
Date: 2024-02-26T11:11:30-08:00
New Revision: 38515580c4c5068e204ff69494ad11bbfacc89b4
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/38515580c4c5068e204ff69494ad11bbfacc89b4
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/38515580c4c5068e204ff69494ad11bbfacc89b4.d
felipepiovezan wrote:
> > This seems akin to running clang-format on the entire project, which last
> > time we talked about still faced opposition
>
> My impression (I admit I haven't reviewed the whole thread lately) is that
> the opposition has mostly to do with how clang-format mangles som
Author: Adrian Prantl
Date: 2024-02-26T09:57:07-08:00
New Revision: f9f331652d4f0aff9ece3570abe8c686cdfefff4
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/f9f331652d4f0aff9ece3570abe8c686cdfefff4
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/f9f331652d4f0aff9ece3570abe8c686cdfefff4.diff
Author: Adrian Prantl
Date: 2024-02-26T09:57:07-08:00
New Revision: 01450dd1c69d1edb0d01159352a56c99988839f4
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/01450dd1c69d1edb0d01159352a56c99988839f4
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/01450dd1c69d1edb0d01159352a56c99988839f4.diff
@@ -26,3 +31,8 @@ def test(self):
"target triple is updated correctly")
error = process.Kill()
self.assertSuccess(error)
+
+# Test debugserver behavior.
+self.filecheck('platform shell cat "%s"' % packets, __file__)
+
https://github.com/JDevlieghere approved this pull request.
LGTM with Jason's comment as it would help simplify the test.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/82938
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/c
https://github.com/adrian-prantl updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/82938
>From 5c9e53d45ba948b8a5e8416aa9b3322c87fc46c8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Adrian Prantl
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:58:17 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Replace ArchSpec::PiecewiseCompare() with
Triple::oper
@@ -,6 +,23 @@ static bool mach_header_validity_test(uint32_t magic,
uint32_t cputype) {
return FormatDynamicLibrariesIntoJSON(image_infos, report_load_commands);
}
+std::optional>
+MachProcess::GetMainBinaryCPUTypes(nub_process_t pid) {
+ int pointer_size = GetInf
@@ -1568,15 +1569,16 @@ bool Target::SetArchitecture(const ArchSpec &arch_spec,
bool set_platform,
if (m_arch.GetSpec().IsCompatibleMatch(other)) {
compatible_local_arch = true;
-bool arch_changed, vendor_changed, os_changed, os_ver_changed,
-
adrian-prantl wrote:
> Overall this looks good but we should verify that this doesn't regress
> running unmodified iOS binaries on macOS (https://reviews.llvm.org/D117340,
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D121444). It was really tricky to get that right and
> it's all based on the binary and host tr
https://github.com/rupprecht closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/82670
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
pogo59 wrote:
> This seems akin to running clang-format on the entire project, which last
> time we talked about still faced opposition
My impression (I admit I haven't reviewed the whole thread lately) is that the
opposition has mostly to do with how clang-format mangles some constructs, not
Author: David Spickett
Date: 2024-02-26T14:01:54Z
New Revision: 8ce81e5924935436d49e0b4e835fa107531505b5
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8ce81e5924935436d49e0b4e835fa107531505b5
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8ce81e5924935436d49e0b4e835fa107531505b5.diff
LOG
Author: David Spickett
Date: 2024-02-26T13:54:05Z
New Revision: 285bff39fd283b3a9a27c06525111d8d4f474e6e
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/285bff39fd283b3a9a27c06525111d8d4f474e6e
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/285bff39fd283b3a9a27c06525111d8d4f474e6e.diff
LOG
Author: David Spickett
Date: 2024-02-26T11:17:04Z
New Revision: d0b1fec9e1510d01dad2c9c429573eaa75f0963c
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d0b1fec9e1510d01dad2c9c429573eaa75f0963c
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d0b1fec9e1510d01dad2c9c429573eaa75f0963c.diff
LOG
Author: David Spickett
Date: 2024-02-26T10:55:31Z
New Revision: 73f11f9579a3206608ad9a07b5793ba451676087
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/73f11f9579a3206608ad9a07b5793ba451676087
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/73f11f9579a3206608ad9a07b5793ba451676087.diff
LOG
62 matches
Mail list logo
