[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46588: [LLDB][lldb-mi] Add possibility to set breakpoints without selecting a target.

labath added inline comments. Comment at: lit/tools/lldb-mi/breakpoint/break-insert.test:14 +# CHECK-AFTER: ^running +# CHECK-AFTER: *stopped,reason="breakpoint-hit" + aprantl wrote: > polyakov.alex wrote: > > aprantl wrote: > > > CHECK-AFTER is not recognized by

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46888: [DWARF] Have HashedNameToDIE store a DataExtractor by value

JDevlieghere accepted this revision. JDevlieghere added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM https://reviews.llvm.org/D46888 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46934: Make ObjectFileMachO work on non-darwin platforms

labath created this revision. labath added reviewers: jasonmolenda, aprantl, clayborg. Herald added subscribers: kristof.beyls, mgorny. Herald added a reviewer: javed.absar. Before this patch we were unable to write cross-platform MachO tests because the parsing code did not compile on other platf

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46885: Remove append parameter to FindGlobalVariables

tromey added a comment. I don't have commit access, so could someone please land this for me? https://reviews.llvm.org/D46885 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46588: [LLDB][lldb-mi] Add possibility to set breakpoints without selecting a target.

aprantl added inline comments. Comment at: lit/tools/lldb-mi/breakpoint/break-insert.test:14 +# CHECK-AFTER: ^running +# CHECK-AFTER: *stopped,reason="breakpoint-hit" + labath wrote: > aprantl wrote: > > polyakov.alex wrote: > > > aprantl wrote: > > > > CHECK-AFT

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46934: Make ObjectFileMachO work on non-darwin platforms

aprantl added inline comments. Comment at: source/Plugins/Process/Utility/RegisterContextDarwin_arm.cpp:1037 SetError(set, Write, -1); -return KERN_INVALID_ARGUMENT; +return -1; } Could we keep this as a local constant? perhaps with an #ifndef KER

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46934: Make ObjectFileMachO work on non-darwin platforms

labath added inline comments. Comment at: source/Plugins/Process/Utility/RegisterContextDarwin_arm.cpp:1037 SetError(set, Write, -1); -return KERN_INVALID_ARGUMENT; +return -1; } aprantl wrote: > Could we keep this as a local constant? > perhaps w

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46588: [LLDB][lldb-mi] Add possibility to set breakpoints without selecting a target.

aprantl added a comment. Alexander, I don't want this discussion to block you progress too much. It's important that we sort out the best way to test lldb-mi early on (and I hope this doesn't take too long), but while we are debating this you could also land the patch with the classic expect-ba

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46588: [LLDB][lldb-mi] Add possibility to set breakpoints without selecting a target.

labath added inline comments. Comment at: lit/tools/lldb-mi/breakpoint/break-insert.test:14 +# CHECK-AFTER: ^running +# CHECK-AFTER: *stopped,reason="breakpoint-hit" + aprantl wrote: > labath wrote: > > aprantl wrote: > > > polyakov.alex wrote: > > > > aprantl wr

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46588: [LLDB][lldb-mi] Add possibility to set breakpoints without selecting a target.

polyakov.alex updated this revision to Diff 147117. polyakov.alex added a comment. I have all the patches I was sending. I will follow this topic until you decide what to do with lldb-mi testing. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D46588 Files: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/too

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r332511 - Fix FileSpecTest after LLVM changes to remove_dots (https://reviews.llvm.org/D46887)

Author: gclayton Date: Wed May 16 11:37:00 2018 New Revision: 332511 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=332511&view=rev Log: Fix FileSpecTest after LLVM changes to remove_dots (https://reviews.llvm.org/D46887) Modified: lldb/trunk/unittests/Utility/FileSpecTest.cpp Modified: lldb/

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46783: FileSpec objects that resolve to "." should have "." in m_filename and m_directory empty.

clayborg abandoned this revision. clayborg added a comment. Fixed LLDB test botes with: Sendingunittests/Utility/FileSpecTest.cpp Transmitting file data .done Committing transaction... Committed revision 332511. https://reviews.llvm.org/D46783

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46934: Make ObjectFileMachO work on non-darwin platforms

jasonmolenda accepted this revision. jasonmolenda added a comment. Thanks for untangling this Pavel, I hadn't noticed we weren't building this plugin for non-darwin systems. I'd agree with Adrian's comment that we should have a constants like LLDB_KERNEL_SUCCESS / LLDB_KERNEL_INVALID_ARGUMENT,

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46934: Make ObjectFileMachO work on non-darwin platforms

aprantl added a comment. Does that mean we can now also remove the #ifdef __APPLE__ from the objectfile unit tests? https://reviews.llvm.org/D46934 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/list

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r332556 - Revert 332511 after reverting llvm revision 332508.

Author: gclayton Date: Wed May 16 16:32:45 2018 New Revision: 332556 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=332556&view=rev Log: Revert 332511 after reverting llvm revision 332508. Modified: lldb/trunk/unittests/Utility/FileSpecTest.cpp Modified: lldb/trunk/unittests/Utility/FileSpecT

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46783: FileSpec objects that resolve to "." should have "." in m_filename and m_directory empty.

clayborg reclaimed this revision. clayborg added a comment. Reviving this patch so I can get the changes into LLDB. Clang is expecting an empty path in many locations and I don't feel comfortable changing remove_dots in clang after trying it. So I would like to use this patch to fix things in L

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D46588: [LLDB][lldb-mi] Add possibility to set breakpoints without selecting a target.

aprantl added a comment. > The advantage of the second one is that we will have the ability to inject > commands which depend on the results of previous commands (something that I > think we will need, sooner or later). That is worth considering. To write good tests that depend on previous re