slackito wrote:
Thanks for the quick response, Jim!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114158
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
jimingham wrote:
There were two issues here, one very minor, and then one that mattered... This
was a little thinko, I forgot that we build into the same SymbolContextList
over all the CU iterations, so I needed to check "did I add to the SC list" not
"is there anything in the SC list" to see
jimingham wrote:
Give me a bit to look at this. The intention of this patch was just to add
more locations, it shouldn't be reducing the number of breakpoints. There's
likely some simple goof here.
Jim
> On Nov 4, 2024, at 2:44 AM, Pavel Labath ***@***.***> wrote:
>
>
> So it sounds like
labath wrote:
So it sounds like the problem is that lldb no longer looks for all compile
units with the given name when setting a breakpoint. Changing that doesn't seem
like it was the intention of this patch. Jim, is there an easy fix for this or
should we revert the patch for now?
https://g
slackito wrote:
Repro was pretty straightforward from the description above.
common.cc:
```c++
#include
#define XSTR(x) STR(x)
#define STR(x) #x
namespace NAMESPACE {
void DoSomeStuff() {
printf("%s::DoSomeStuff()\n", XSTR(NAMESPACE));
}
} // end NAMESPACE
```
main.cc:
```c++
namespace
slackito wrote:
Hi,
I'm having some problems with one of our tests, that also reproduce after
[#114337](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114337).
I don't have a repro yet but I'll describe what I know of the problem so far in
case it rings a bell.
The test in question has a common s
jimingham wrote:
That's fixed in:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114337
Fix stepping away from the bottom-most frame of a virtual inlined call stack.
by jimingham · Pull Request #114337 · llvm/llvm-project
github.com
which is waiting on review. Would have fixed this sooner but d
dyung wrote:
@jimingham your change is causing two cross-project-test failures, can you take
a look or revert if you need time to investigate?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114158
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
h
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder
`cross-project-tests-sie-ubuntu-dwarf5` running on `doug-worker-1b` while
building `lldb` at step 6 "test-build-unified-tree-check-cross-project".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/163/bui
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder
`cross-project-tests-sie-ubuntu` running on `doug-worker-1a` while building
`lldb` at step 6 "test-build-unified-tree-check-cross-project".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/181/builds/768
https://github.com/jimingham updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114158
>From 0695a7b57597fd08a802dbe4af06291ceb75d9f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Ingham
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 17:58:43 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] =?UTF-8?q?Revert=20"Revert=20"Add=20the=20ability=20t?=
=?UT
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb
Author: None (jimingham)
Changes
This fixes the two test suite failures that I missed in the PR:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112939
One was a poorly written test case - it assumed that on connect to a gdb-remote
with a running proce
https://github.com/jimingham created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114158
This fixes the two test suite failures that I missed in the PR:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112939
One was a poorly written test case - it assumed that on connect to a gdb-remote
with a running
github-actions[bot] wrote:
:warning: Python code formatter, darker found issues in your code. :warning:
You can test this locally with the following command:
``bash
darker --check --diff -r
39303e24b6f628f3c080f1b54bd12383a55b9b3a...dfcd21afd11b6e384ece06f128636dde2c075ac6
lldb/
14 matches
Mail list logo
