[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D78588: [lldb/Core] Check that ArchSpec is valid.

JDevlieghere added a comment. In D78588#1996222 , @labath wrote: > The presence of `llvm_unreachable` here is questionable, but I am surprised > that this comes up in the context of reproducers. If the reproducers cause > this function to be called with

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D78588: [lldb/Core] Check that ArchSpec is valid.

labath added a comment. The presence of `llvm_unreachable` here is questionable, but I am surprised that this comes up in the context of reproducers. If the reproducers cause this function to be called with a different ArchSpec, then it sounds like there are bigger problems that need to be solv

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D78588: [lldb/Core] Check that ArchSpec is valid.

clayborg added a comment. None of this is exposed through SBPlatform right? No way to test this? Comment at: lldb/source/Target/Platform.cpp:1825-1826 ArchSpec arch = target.GetArchitecture(); + if (!arch.IsValid()) +return 0; + would be nice to log som

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D78588: [lldb/Core] Check that ArchSpec is valid.

davide added a comment. What's exactly the testcase doing? Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D78588/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D78588 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D78588: [lldb/Core] Check that ArchSpec is valid.

JDevlieghere created this revision. JDevlieghere added reviewers: jingham, clayborg, labath. A reproducer replay hit an `llvm_unreachable` in Target.cpp because the architecture was not set and therefore the `ArchSpec` was invalid. Unhandled architecture in Platform::GetSoftwareBreakpointTrap