[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47415: [lldb, lldb-mi] Re-implement MI -exec-continue command.

labath added inline comments. Comment at: tools/lldb-mi/MICmdCmdExec.cpp:248 } - } else { -// ToDo: Re-evaluate if this is required when application near finished as -// this is parsing LLDB error message -// which seems a hack and is code brittle -const cha

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47708: PDB support of function-level linking and splitted functions

labath added a comment. Thank you for your patience. I am very happy with the final result here. I personally like to keep number of files in a test minimal (hence I inlined the test into the cpp file), but overall that's not really important. https://reviews.llvm.org/D47708 ___

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47881: DebugNamesDWARFIndex: Implement GetFunctions method

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL334273: DebugNamesDWARFIndex: Implement GetFunctions method (authored by labath, committed by ). Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D47881 Files: l

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r334273 - DebugNamesDWARFIndex: Implement GetFunctions method

Author: labath Date: Fri Jun 8 02:10:31 2018 New Revision: 334273 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=334273&view=rev Log: DebugNamesDWARFIndex: Implement GetFunctions method Summary: This patch implements the non-regex variant of GetFunctions. To share more code with the Apple implemen

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47415: [lldb, lldb-mi] Re-implement MI -exec-continue command.

apolyakov added inline comments. Comment at: tools/lldb-mi/MICmdCmdExec.cpp:248 } - } else { -// ToDo: Re-evaluate if this is required when application near finished as -// this is parsing LLDB error message -// which seems a hack and is code brittle -const

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47415: [lldb, lldb-mi] Re-implement MI -exec-continue command.

labath added inline comments. Comment at: tools/lldb-mi/MICmdCmdExec.cpp:248 } - } else { -// ToDo: Re-evaluate if this is required when application near finished as -// this is parsing LLDB error message -// which seems a hack and is code brittle -const cha

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r334277 - DebugNamesDWARFIndex: Implement regex version of the GetFunctions method

Author: labath Date: Fri Jun 8 03:31:55 2018 New Revision: 334277 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=334277&view=rev Log: DebugNamesDWARFIndex: Implement regex version of the GetFunctions method This also fixes a bug where SymbolFileDWARF was returning the same function multiple times

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r334279 - Fix TestMiExec.py

Author: labath Date: Fri Jun 8 03:39:55 2018 New Revision: 334279 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=334279&view=rev Log: Fix TestMiExec.py r334215 changed the error message the tool prints for invalid thread arguments to -exec-next command. This adjust the test to match that. Modifie

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47415: [lldb, lldb-mi] Re-implement MI -exec-continue command.

polyakov.alex updated this revision to Diff 150486. polyakov.alex added a reviewer: labath. polyakov.alex added a comment. Removed unnecessary m_lldbResult attribute. https://reviews.llvm.org/D47415 Files: lit/tools/lldb-mi/exec/exec-continue.test tools/lldb-mi/MICmdCmdExec.cpp tools/lldb

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47929: Add modulemap to lldb include directory

aprantl added a comment. That's awesome! May I ask why you chose to use lldb_Component modules instead of doing submodules? Is this for build performance? https://reviews.llvm.org/D47929 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org htt

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47914: [lldb-mi] Add overloaded method for setting an error.

aprantl added a comment. There is no testcase... is this used in a subsequent commit? Comment at: lldb/trunk/tools/lldb-mi/MICmdBase.cpp:223 +// Throws: None. +//-- +void CMICmdBase::SetError(const lldb::SBError &error) { At some point we should convert the en

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47914: [lldb-mi] Add overloaded method for setting an error.

apolyakov added a comment. No, it's not used in a subsequent commit. Moreover, I think that we should revert this commit sometimes in a future, since it doesn't provide additional useful functionality. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D47914 __

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47929: Add modulemap to lldb include directory

bruno added a comment. Very nice! > I generated a report for the remaining cyclic dependencies in the `lldb` > module here . Do you plan to fix headers at some point to break out the dependencies? Comment at: incl

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47708: PDB support of function-level linking and splitted functions

Doesn't the LIT based test drop the split-function case (originally produced with PGO)? Sorry for being late to the party, but it seems beneficial to have both LIT *and* checked in binaries since in general they are complementary: checking against freshly built binaries only covers a matching set

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47708: PDB support of function-level linking and splitted functions

lemo added subscribers: zturner, lemo. lemo added a comment. Doesn't the LIT based test drop the split-function case (originally produced with PGO)? Sorry for being late to the party, but it seems beneficial to have both LIT *and* checked in binaries since in general they are complementary: check

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47708: PDB support of function-level linking and splitted functions

zturner added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47708#1126669, @lemo wrote: > Doesn't the LIT based test drop the split-function case (originally > produced with PGO)? > > Sorry for being late to the party, but it seems beneficial to have both LIT > *and* checked in binaries since in gene

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47708: PDB support of function-level linking and splitted functions

lemo added a comment. I agree, checked in binaries are not always pretty. But some coverage depends checked in binaries (or at very least is dramatically harder to get the same thing from source) Are we saying that sacrificing coverage to keep tests smaller should be the default trade off? http

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47708: PDB support of function-level linking and splitted functions

I agree, checked in binaries are not always pretty. But some coverage depends checked in binaries (or at very least is dramatically harder to get the same thing from source) Are we saying that sacrificing coverage to keep tests smaller should be the default trade off? On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:0

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47708: PDB support of function-level linking and splitted functions

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:10 AM Leonard Mosescu wrote: > I agree, checked in binaries are not always pretty. But some coverage > depends checked in binaries (or at very least is dramatically harder to get > the same thing from source) > > Are we saying that sacrificing coverage to keep tests smal

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47708: PDB support of function-level linking and splitted functions

So what's your take on this particular case? As far as I can see (please correct me if I'm wrong), the LIT-only tests: 1. Don't cover the case where a function is split into disjoint regions, right? 2. Also don't cover the cross-targeting case (ex. the native PDB reader hosted on Linux) 3. A bug i

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47708: PDB support of function-level linking and splitted functions

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 18:48, Leonard Mosescu wrote: > > So what's your take on this particular case? As far as I can see (please > correct me if I'm wrong), the LIT-only tests: > > 1. Don't cover the case where a function is split into disjoint regions, > right? For this particular case, I don'

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47708: PDB support of function-level linking and splitted functions

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:52 AM Pavel Labath wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 18:48, Leonard Mosescu wrote: > > > > To me, a linker order file (of any linker) sounds like a good > abstraction level for generating that kind of input (on linux, I might > have preferred a .s file with hardcoded .loc

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47708: PDB support of function-level linking and splitted functions

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 19:58, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:52 AM Pavel Labath wrote: >> >> On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 at 18:48, Leonard Mosescu wrote: >> > >> > To me, a linker order file (of any linker) sounds like a good >> abstraction level for generating that kind of input

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47708: PDB support of function-level linking and splitted functions

Ahh sorry, I jumped in kinda late and the thread was already quite long so I didn’t read everything. It would probably be some overhead to learn how to write the asm files but you can probably have clang-cl generate one for you and just move the directives around On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 12:18 PM Pav

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47914: [lldb-mi] Add overloaded method for setting an error.

aprantl added a comment. Okay.. reverting is cheap, so please go ahead. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D47914 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47708: PDB support of function-level linking and splitted functions

> > For this particular case, I don't think having a split function is > particularly interesting. I agree that conceptually all disjoint ranges are the same. Until they are not: I haven't looked closely at the code changes but it's easy to introduce assumptions about the layout hierarchy (range-

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r334320 - Delete some dead code

Author: xiaobai Date: Fri Jun 8 14:13:26 2018 New Revision: 334320 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=334320&view=rev Log: Delete some dead code Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Host/macosx/Host.mm lldb/trunk/tools/debugserver/source/RNBRemote.cpp lldb/trunk/tools/driver/Driver.

Re: [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r334320 - Delete some dead code

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Alex Langford via lldb-commits wrote: > Author: xiaobai > Date: Fri Jun 8 14:13:26 2018 > New Revision: 334320 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=334320&view=rev > Log: > Delete some dead code > Thanks! ___

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r334333 - Delete dead code in NativeProcessLinux

Author: xiaobai Date: Fri Jun 8 15:14:29 2018 New Revision: 334333 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=334333&view=rev Log: Delete dead code in NativeProcessLinux As far as I can tell, this code has always been guarded by `#if 0`. If this is useful code, it can be added back. Modified:

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r334336 - Remove more dead code from NativeProcessLinux

Author: xiaobai Date: Fri Jun 8 15:28:41 2018 New Revision: 334336 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=334336&view=rev Log: Remove more dead code from NativeProcessLinux This should have been removed in r334333. Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Plugins/Process/Linux/NativeProcessLinux.h

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47929: Add modulemap to lldb include directory

teemperor added a comment. @aprantl It's good for build times and more importantly it's consistent with the way Clang/LLVM are naming/organizing their modules. But I actually don't have a strong opinion on how the modules are named/organized. @bruno Breaking up the lldb module in the future is

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47929: Add modulemap to lldb include directory

teemperor updated this revision to Diff 150604. teemperor added a comment. - Removed some inconsistent white space. https://reviews.llvm.org/D47929 Files: include/lldb/module.modulemap Index: include/lldb/module.modulemap === --