abhishek.aggarwal marked 2 inline comments as done.
abhishek.aggarwal added a comment.
Thanks for your suggestions. I have made changes according to feedback and
submitting it here.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33434
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb
abhishek.aggarwal updated this revision to Diff 100376.
abhishek.aggarwal added a comment.
Updating https://reviews.llvm.org/D33434: Added new API to SBStructuredData
class
- Removed inferior from test case (not required)
- fixed enum scope
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33434
Files:
include/lld
labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Ok, I think this makes a reasonable starting point for further work. We just
need to tighten the condition on when to run these tests.
Comment at: unittests/tools/CMakeLists
Hi Lists,
I have to implement a graphical interface to open the Dump of Macos with
LLDB.
I know how to do this using the command line, but this and less productive,
I found that LLDB-MI little make me an interface to do this need but I did
not find an example of LLDB-MI in C ++ and How to build LLD
labath added a comment.
thanks for the effort. I found the logic of the test quite difficult to follow,
with multiple breakpoints and notify_calls(). Instead of trying to point out
each problem, I figured it will be easier to write my take on how the test
could look like: https://paste.ubuntu.c
Yes, that would definitely be a good idea. I was just saying that we
shouldn't gate *any* .debug_frame support on being able to read a
dwarf4 .debug_frame section.
BTW, we've had a short chat about this with Abidh on IRC, I am going
to paste the relevant part here, to make sure everyone is on the
Author: ravitheja
Date: Fri May 26 06:46:27 2017
New Revision: 303972
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=303972&view=rev
Log:
Implementation of remote packets for Trace data.
Summary:
The changes consist of new packets for trace manipulation and
trace collection. The new packets are als
.debug_frame may exist, even if there is no other debugging information. In
this case we cannot obtain DWARF version from debug_info and ParseCIE is the
only place where we can get CIE version and check whether it is supported or
not.
Thanks,
Tatyana
-Original Message-
From: Pavel Laba
Author: labath
Date: Fri May 26 08:53:39 2017
New Revision: 303988
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=303988&view=rev
Log:
Fix 32-bit builds
r303972 used GetValueForKeyAsInteger with mismatched types (e.g.
instantiating with uint64_t, but passing a size_t argument), which
manifested its
labath added inline comments.
Comment at:
source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS.cpp:1304
+ // Allocate the response buffer.
+ uint8_t *buffer = new (std::nothrow) uint8_t[byte_count];
+ if (buffer == nullptr)
Hey, ravi. You're lea
Author: ravitheja
Date: Fri May 26 09:26:14 2017
New Revision: 303991
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=303991&view=rev
Log:
Fixing Memory Leak
Modified:
lldb/trunk/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS.cpp
Modified:
lldb/trunk/source/Plugins/Process
Or just use a std vector
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM Pavel Labath via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> labath added inline comments.
>
>
>
> Comment at:
> source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS.cpp:1304
> + // Allocate the response
The virtue of the MI interface is that it allows you to write a tool that
supports gdb as well as lldb. But the MI is a not an API per se, it's just a
structured text interface. You send text commands to the MI server, and
receive text results which you then parse to extract the results.
If
Please note that version in the debug_frame is is specific to the call frame
information.
It is not the same as DWARF version number.
Regards,
Abid
From: lldb-commits on behalf of Tatyana
Krasnukha via lldb-commits
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 12:47 PM
To
clayborg requested changes to this revision.
clayborg added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
We should probably store the stacks as lldb::addr_t values that are load
addresses for quicker comparisons and searches. Inlined code details things
more clearly.
Yes, and it is what we need - this version increases when section undergo
incompatible changes.
Thanks,
Tatyana
-Original Message-
From: Abid, Hafiz [mailto:hafiz_a...@mentor.com]
Sent: Friday, 26 May, 2017 7:51 PM
To: Pavel Labath ; Tatyana Krasnukha
Cc: lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
clayborg added inline comments.
Comment at:
source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS.cpp:1304
+ // Allocate the response buffer.
+ uint8_t *buffer = new (std::nothrow) uint8_t[byte_count];
+ if (buffer == nullptr)
labath wrote:
> Hey
bgianfo updated this revision to Diff 100529.
bgianfo marked 7 inline comments as done.
bgianfo added a comment.
Address Pavel and Greg's feedback on Diff 100365.
Pavel: I took your suggestions to make the test case more readable,
I really appreciate the guidance. I did have to tweak some of the
18 matches
Mail list logo
