On 5 December 2017 at 17:44, Greg Clayton wrote:
> Didn't someone recently submit a patch to allow relocation of .o files? That
> should have taken care of the issue, no?
>
I take it you mean D38142. This made sure that the memory we store the
object file in is writable, which makes sure that we
Didn't someone recently submit a patch to allow relocation of .o files? That
should have taken care of the issue, no?
> On Dec 4, 2017, at 5:01 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-commits
> wrote:
>
> The reason you hit the assert there, is because you're running lldb on
> an un-linked object file. When
clayborg added a comment.
One really nice way we can get a lot of testing of the DWARF to
clang::ASTContext conversion is to:
1 - compile a source file with clang and dumps the AST for a specific type as
the compiler knows it
2 - using the .o file with debug info from step 1, load it into LLDB a
The reason you hit the assert there, is because you're running lldb on
an un-linked object file. When you link the file, the linker will
resolve these relocations and they will disappear. This is also the
reason you got those errors after removing the assert (you were
trying to parse unrelocated d
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:50 PM Jim Ingham via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> jingham added a comment.
>
> Cool. We do need to make sure people don't start writing tests against it
> yet, however. That would be wasted effort.
>
I don't think it follows that it would be a wasted
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL319599: Add a symbols subcommand to lldb-test. (authored by
zturner).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40745?vs=125197&id=125239#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D4
jingham added a comment.
Cool. We do need to make sure people don't start writing tests against it yet,
however. That would be wasted effort.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40745
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.l
zturner added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40745#942913, @jingham wrote:
> I'm sure this is just a "quick and dirty implementation" thing, but depending
> on the output of Dump functions doesn't seem like a great idea for long term
> stable testing.
>
> Those functions are meant to b
jingham added a comment.
I'm sure this is just an "quick and dirty implementation" thing, but depending
on the output of Dump functions doesn't seem like a great idea for long term
stable testing.
Those functions are meant to be useful for debugging lldb, and gathering data
when you can't get
vsk added a comment.
The general approach sgtm, and the patch itself looks reasonable.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40745
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
davide added inline comments.
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/ELF/ObjectFileELF.cpp:2764-2765
switch (reloc_type(rel)) {
case R_386_32:
case R_386_PC32:
default:
It's unclear to me why PC-rel and 32-bit abs rel are not handl
davide added subscribers: vsk, aprantl.
davide added a comment.
I really like this approach. I think it's going to expose a large amount of
bugs, and probably facilitate the transition in case we want to move to the
LLVM readers for this.
@aprantl / @vsk , what do you think?
https://reviews.ll
zturner added a comment.
If I remove that assert, I get this output:
D:\src\llvmbuild\lldb>bin\lldb-test.exe clang-ast foo.o
error: foo.o {0x003b}: unhandled type tag 0x0005
(DW_TAG_formal_parameter), please file a bug and attach the file at the start
of this error message
error: foo.
zturner created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: emaste.
This is the bare minimum needed to dump `ClangASTContext`s via `lldb-test`.
Within the first 10 seconds of using this, I already found a bug. A `FIXME`
note and repro is included in the comments in this patch.
With this, it shou
14 matches
Mail list logo
