It seems my compiler is magic as well. Running the test against
/usr/bin/clang also succeeds (all variants)...
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 at 10:19, Pavel Labath wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 at 18:46, Jim Ingham wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 8, 2018, at 2:49 AM, Pavel Labath wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 at 18:46, Jim Ingham wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 2018, at 2:49 AM, Pavel Labath wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 at 02:46, Davide Italiano
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Jim Ingham wrote:
> > > The hashing algorithm gives different values - at least f
I've gone ahead and skipped this test for the dsym variant until this is
resolved. r327089.
vedant
> On Mar 8, 2018, at 10:49 AM, Davide Italiano via lldb-commits
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Jim Ingham wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 2:49 AM, Pavel Labath wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Jim Ingham wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 8, 2018, at 2:49 AM, Pavel Labath wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 at 02:46, Davide Italiano wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Jim Ingham wrote:
>> > The hashing algorithm gives different values - at least for foob
> On Mar 8, 2018, at 2:49 AM, Pavel Labath wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 at 02:46, Davide Italiano wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Jim Ingham wrote:
> > The hashing algorithm gives different values - at least for foobár -
> > between the two implementations. So if you buil
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 at 02:46, Davide Italiano wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Jim Ingham wrote:
> > The hashing algorithm gives different values - at least for foobár -
> between the two implementations. So if you build with an older clang, and
> test with a new lldb, the type lookup fa
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Jim Ingham wrote:
> The hashing algorithm gives different values - at least for foobár - between
> the two implementations. So if you build with an older clang, and test with
> a new lldb, the type lookup fails.
>
This is not my case, I think? I'm building from
The hashing algorithm gives different values - at least for foobár - between
the two implementations. So if you build with an older clang, and test with a
new lldb, the type lookup fails.
Were the two algorithms supposed to be identical? It will mean that type
lookups in the output of older c
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-commits
wrote:
> Author: labath
> Date: Fri Feb 23 09:49:26 2018
> New Revision: 325927
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=325927&view=rev
> Log:
> Replace HashStringUsingDJB with llvm::djbHash
>
> Summary:
> The llvm function is
Author: labath
Date: Fri Feb 23 09:49:26 2018
New Revision: 325927
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=325927&view=rev
Log:
Replace HashStringUsingDJB with llvm::djbHash
Summary:
The llvm function is equivalent to this one. Where possible I tried to
replace const char* with llvm::StringR
10 matches
Mail list logo
