> On Feb 28, 2017, at 4:15 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:49 PM Jim Ingham wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> >
> > That patch was not really about early returns, it was about using
> > StringRef. So my comment about the aestheti
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:09 PM Jason Molenda wrote:
>
> You mentioned that this kind of mechanical churn of the code is something
> everyone else in the LLVM/LLDB community supports. I don't know about the
> LLVM community, but I strongly argue that this is the wrong way to develop
> a stable,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:49 PM Jim Ingham wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> >
> > That patch was not really about early returns, it was about using
> StringRef. So my comment about the aesthetics was referring to the patch
> in general. The early return was mor
It makes me uncomfortable to have these whole-project-ranging change sets going
into the source, one example being const char * -> StringRef) for such small
benefit. Yes there were a few methods where we were doing string parsing and
tokenizing which became much smaller and easier to understand
> On Feb 28, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
> That patch was not really about early returns, it was about using StringRef.
> So my comment about the aesthetics was referring to the patch in general.
> The early return was more of a drive by, since I was already touching the
> cod
That patch was not really about early returns, it was about using
StringRef. So my comment about the aesthetics was referring to the patch
in general. The early return was more of a drive by, since I was already
touching the code. In that respect I was just following the well
documented and wide
Another principle that seems useful here is not to make this sort of logic
change unless this is code you are currently working on. When you have the
actual purpose of the code in your head, it is fairly easy to make this sort of
change correctly. You know what the code is supposed to be doing
> On Feb 28, 2017, at 3:14 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:07 PM Jason Molenda wrote:
> At it's core, lldb is a real world tool that thousands of people depend on;
> breaking it or introducing bugs for little gain beyond aesthetics is a very
> poor tradeoff.
>
> Ju
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:07 PM Jason Molenda wrote:
> At it's core, lldb is a real world tool that thousands of people depend
> on; breaking it or introducing bugs for little gain beyond aesthetics is a
> very poor tradeoff.
>
Just for the record, I disagree with this assertion that there is li
Writing SB API tests for the disassembler is easy, as Jim notes there is an
SBFrame::Disassemble() method that maps directly on to this call.
I've written unit tests that create a disassembler -- I do it for the unwind
tests. It's easy when you have an array of bytes to feed directly into the
Make that SBFrame::Disassemble...
Jim
> On Feb 28, 2017, at 10:21 AM, Jim Ingham wrote:
>
> SBStackFrame::Disassemble calls StackFrame::Disassemble to do its job. From
> the looks of it, your goof would cause lldb never to return any instructions
> when asked to disassemble a stack frame, si
SBStackFrame::Disassemble calls StackFrame::Disassemble to do its job. From
the looks of it, your goof would cause lldb never to return any instructions
when asked to disassemble a stack frame, since StackFrame does the work lazily
and the error was to NOT do the work when the disassembly is em
I'm not even sure how to exercise this code path. Granted, the reason it
broke at all is because of no test case, but I feel like someone who
understands this code should probably prepare a test case for it. (I know
in the past Jason has said that it was notoriously hard to write test cases
for d
No test case?
Jim
> On Feb 28, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
> wrote:
>
> Author: zturner
> Date: Tue Feb 28 11:59:59 2017
> New Revision: 296495
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=296495&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix incorrect logic in StackFrame::Disassemble.
>
>
Author: zturner
Date: Tue Feb 28 11:59:59 2017
New Revision: 296495
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=296495&view=rev
Log:
Fix incorrect logic in StackFrame::Disassemble.
This had broken as the result of some previous cleanup.
Modified:
lldb/trunk/source/Target/StackFrame.cpp
Mod
15 matches
Mail list logo
