This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL323100: Add SysV Abi for PPC64le (authored by labath,
committed by ).
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702?vs=130236&id=130860#toc
Repositor
alexandreyy added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#981651, @alexandreyy wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#980893, @davide wrote:
>
> > Wait a minute. Is there any reason why we can't add tests now?
>
>
> Thanks.
> We are running the default tests of the lldb suite.
> Curr
davide accepted this revision.
davide added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
lgtm, feel free to go ahead.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-
alexandreyy added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#980893, @davide wrote:
> Wait a minute. Is there any reason why we can't add tests now?
Thanks.
We are running the default tests of the lldb suite.
Currently, we have 48 failures that we are working on.
Could we proceed with this p
alexandreyy added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#981456, @labath wrote:
> Well.. whether this plugin is tested depends on what machine you're running
> on. If you're running on a ppc machine, plenty of tests will exercise this
> code (TestReturnValue, and pretty much any test doi
labath added a comment.
Well.. whether this plugin is tested depends on what machine you're running on.
If you're running on a ppc machine, plenty of tests will exercise this code
(TestReturnValue, and pretty much any test doing expression evaluation).
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am assumin
davide requested changes to this revision.
davide added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Wait a minute. Is there any reason why we can't add tests now?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commi
jhibbits accepted this revision.
jhibbits added a comment.
Looks fine to me. We should eventually add tests for this, for both endians.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/
labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thank you for taking the time to do this.
@chmeee, do you want to take a quick look at this?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702
___
lldb-commits mai
alexandreyy added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#978836, @clayborg wrote:
> Looks nice. Only nit is we probably don't need the m_endian member variable.
> See inlined comment.
Thanks. I have changed the code to get the byte order.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702
___
alexandreyy updated this revision to Diff 130236.
alexandreyy added a comment.
Removed m_endian variable.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702
Files:
source/Plugins/ABI/SysV-ppc64/ABISysV_ppc64.cpp
source/Plugins/ABI/SysV-ppc64/ABISysV_ppc64.h
source/Plugins/Process/Utility/RegisterInfos_ppc64
clayborg added a comment.
Looks nice. Only nit is we probably don't need the m_endian member variable.
See inlined comment.
Comment at: source/Plugins/ABI/SysV-ppc64/ABISysV_ppc64.h:114
+
+ lldb::ByteOrder m_endian;
};
Most other code uses "m_byte_order" as
alexandreyy updated this revision to Diff 130180.
alexandreyy added a comment.
Herald added a subscriber: JDevlieghere.
Merged ppc64le and ppc64 plugins.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702
Files:
source/Plugins/ABI/SysV-ppc64/ABISysV_ppc64.cpp
source/Plugins/ABI/SysV-ppc64/ABISysV_ppc64.h
so
alexandreyy added a comment.
Thanks, @labath and @chmeee .
I will do the merge and send the update soon.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#975873, @chmeee wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#972009, @labath wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#971076, @jhibbits wrote:
> >
> >
labath requested changes to this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Thank you for looking at this @chmeee. @alexandreyy, could you update this
plugin to handle big-endian as well, and then delete the old plugin?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702
__
chmeee added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#972009, @labath wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#971076, @jhibbits wrote:
>
> > > @emaste, @jhibbits: do you know what's the state of ppc64 lldb support in
> > > freebsd?
> >
> > It's broken because LLDB doesn't yet handle fun
alexandreyy added a comment.
I think the stack frame structure is not correct for the PPC64be plugin.
But it is hard to say how bad it is broken and fix the plugin without testing
it.
The register numbers and stack frame structures are different from the ABI 1.9
to the ABI 2.0.
In https://revie
labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#971076, @jhibbits wrote:
> > @emaste, @jhibbits: do you know what's the state of ppc64 lldb support in
> > freebsd?
>
> It's broken because LLDB doesn't yet handle function descriptors, and I
> haven't yet made the effort (ENOTIME) to f
jhibbits added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#971012, @labath wrote:
> Hmm.. that complicates things a bit. How badly is it broken, do you estimate?
> Would it be any better than if we just made your new plugin handle the the
> big-endian target as well (just a best effort, I'm n
labath added subscribers: jhibbits, emaste.
labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#970887, @alexandreyy wrote:
> Thanks, @labath .
> The ABI plugin for PPC64be is not working: https://reviews.llvm.org/D5988 .
> It was implemented based on the x86_64 plugin and needs to be fi
alexandreyy added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#970844, @labath wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#969294, @hfinkel wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#969179, @labath wrote:
> >
> > > Is the only difference between ppc64 and ppc64le ABIs in the endianness
>
labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#969294, @hfinkel wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#969179, @labath wrote:
>
> > Is the only difference between ppc64 and ppc64le ABIs in the endianness of
> > the values?
> > If so, could we make one unified ABI which takes th
hfinkel added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#969179, @labath wrote:
> Is the only difference between ppc64 and ppc64le ABIs in the endianness of
> the values?
> If so, could we make one unified ABI which takes the endianness as an
> argument (in the constructor, or as a template
labath added a comment.
Is the only difference between ppc64 and ppc64le ABIs in the endianness of the
values?
If so, could we make one unified ABI which takes the endianness as an argument
(in the constructor, or as a template argument, or deduces it from target
endiannes, ...) ?
https://rev
alexandreyy added a comment.
Thanks, @clayborg.
@labath , Could you commit this patch?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
alexandreyy created this revision.
Herald added subscribers: kbarton, mgorny, nemanjai.
This patch implements the ABI Plugin for PPC64le. It was based on the
ABI for PPC64. It also enables LLDB to evaluate expressions using JIT.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702
Files:
source/API/SystemInitiali
26 matches
Mail list logo
