aleksandr.urakov added a comment.
This doesn't look like the cause, the test fails for me without this patch...
Here is my tests output for PDB folder:
-- Testing: 10 tests, 8 threads --
FAIL: lldb :: SymbolFile/PDB/enums-layout.test (1 of 10)
FAIL: lldb :: SymbolFile/PDB/typedefs.test (2
JDevlieghere added a comment.
Looks good to me, modulo the inline test (or the current comments addressed).
Thanks Shafik!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49271
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailm
labath added a comment.
Could you also add a test case for this?
I think it should be possible to test this via the gdb-client
(`test/testcases/functionalities/gdb_remote_client/`) test suite. If I
understood the previous comments correctly, you'll need to mock a server that
sends a `thread-pcs
aleksandr.urakov created this revision.
aleksandr.urakov added reviewers: asmith, zturner, labath, clayborg.
Herald added a subscriber: JDevlieghere.
This patch adds the implementation of an UDT completion from PDB symbol files.
For now it supports different UDT kinds (union, struct and class), s
labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
This looks straight-forward enough.
Comment at: unittests/Utility/AnsiTerminalTest.cpp:18
+ std::string format = ansi::FormatAnsiTerminalCodes("");
+ EXPECT_STREQ("", forma
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 at 18:36, Jim Ingham via lldb-commits
wrote:
>
> There's code in the ThreadHandler to handle systems with short thread names.
> If that isn't producing readable names, we should fix it there. A better
> algorithm might be to drop the leading "lldb" and then instead of trunc
labath added a comment.
We're also trying to avoid adding new clang-specific code to the debugger core.
I think it would make more sense if the (clang-based) c++ highlighter was
provided by some plugin. I see a couple of options:
- the c++ language plugin: I think this is the most low-level plu
JDevlieghere created this revision.
JDevlieghere added reviewers: jingham, labath, zturner.
Herald added a reviewer: jfb.
We used to have a pretty stack trace printer in SystemInitializerCommon. This
was disabled on Apple because we didn't want the library to be setting signal
handlers, as this
Author: labath
Date: Mon Jul 16 07:37:58 2018
New Revision: 337173
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=337173&view=rev
Log:
Fix TestDataFormatterUnordered for older libc++ versions
clang recently started diagnosing "exception specification in
declaration does not match previous declarati
labath added a comment.
I think this is fine (though the meaning of SKIP_LLDB_SERVER is subtly
different than SKIP_DEBUGSERVER), but while looking at this I got an idea for a
possible improvement.
How do you currently convince lldb to use ds2 instead of lldb-server? Do you
just set the LLDB_DE
labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I think this makes perfect sense. Could you also add the same thing to the
other binaries in the tools subfolder?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49377
__
JDevlieghere updated this revision to Diff 155684.
JDevlieghere added a comment.
Herald added a subscriber: ki.stfu.
I've added it to the tools that made sense to me. Let me know if I missed
something obvious.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49377
Files:
source/Initialization/SystemInitializerComm
labath added a comment.
Could you please add a test for the new behavior as well?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48865
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Makes sense to me.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49038
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailma
labath added a comment.
I don't agree with the two-stage initialization of the MinidumpParser class
being introduced here. We deliberately introduced the `Create` static function
to avoid this. If this `Initialize` function in checking invariants which are
assumed to be hold by other parser met
Author: labath
Date: Mon Jul 16 09:18:52 2018
New Revision: 337188
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=337188&view=rev
Log:
Fix typo in find-basic-function test
Wrong FileCheck header meant that we were not matching what we should.
This allows us to get rid of the -allow-deprecated-dag-
teemperor updated this revision to Diff 155706.
teemperor added a comment.
- Removed temp string variables.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49307
Files:
include/lldb/Utility/AnsiTerminal.h
unittests/Utility/AnsiTerminalTest.cpp
unittests/Utility/CMakeLists.txt
Index: unittests/Utility/CMakeLi
Author: teemperor
Date: Mon Jul 16 09:38:30 2018
New Revision: 337189
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=337189&view=rev
Log:
Fix some crashes and deadlocks in FormatAnsiTerminalCodes
Summary:
This patch fixes a few problems with the FormatAnsiTerminalCodes function:
* It does an infin
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL337189: Fix some crashes and deadlocks in
FormatAnsiTerminalCodes (authored by teemperor, committed by ).
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D4930
teemperor added a comment.
@zturner We can migrate the existing AnsiTerminal.h to reuse the LLVM coloring
backend. This way we fix also the code that already uses this convenient
interface.
@labath I think we can add to the Language class the option to add its related
syntax highlighting suppo
stella.stamenova added a comment.
I'll spend some time looking into this today, but with commit
0fa537f42f1af238c74bf41998dc1af31195839a variables.test passes. Then with
commit d9899ad86e0a9b05781015cacced1438fcf70343, the test fails. There are
clearly a couple of other commits in that range, b
The problem is not returning an error from Minidump::Create() - if that was
the case this could easily be improved indeed. The two-phase initialization
is a consequence of the LLDB plugin lookup:
1. Target::CreateProcess() calls Process::FindPlugin()
2. ProcessMinidump::CreateInstance() then has t
lemo added subscribers: amccarth, bgianfo, labath, penryu.
lemo added a comment.
The problem is not returning an error from Minidump::Create() - if that was
the case this could easily be improved indeed. The two-phase initialization
is a consequence of the LLDB plugin lookup:
1. Target::CreatePro
dblaikie added subscribers: teemperor, dblaikie.
dblaikie added a comment.
If the implementation of a function requires a string - it should probably
accept string (not a StringRef) as a parameter - to avoid back-and-forth
conversions in cases where the caller already has a string to use.
Repos
If the implementation of a function requires a string - it should probably
accept string (not a StringRef) as a parameter - to avoid back-and-forth
conversions in cases where the caller already has a string to use.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:43 PM Stella Stamenova via Phabricator via
llvm-commits
Ok, I see what you mean now.
Looking at the other core file plugins (elf, mach-o), it looks like
they do only very basic verification before the accept the file. The
pretty much just check the magic numbers, which would be more-or-less
equivalent to our `MinidumpHeader::Parse` call. As this does n
Fwiw I’ve seen cases where tests have passed even though they shouldn’t
have — the functionality being tested was broken. The one that comes to
mind was where we were doing a backtrace and then checking that it matched
the regex “main\(argc=3” to make sure the local variable argc had the
correct va
zturner added a comment.
Fwiw I’ve seen cases where tests have passed even though they shouldn’t
have — the functionality being tested was broken. The one that comes to
mind was where we were doing a backtrace and then checking that it matched
the regex “main\(argc=3” to make sure the local variab
xiaobai added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49282#1163517, @labath wrote:
> I think this is fine (though the meaning of SKIP_LLDB_SERVER is subtly
> different than SKIP_DEBUGSERVER), but while looking at this I got an idea for
> a possible improvement.
How is it subtly different? Ad
Author: xiaobai
Date: Mon Jul 16 12:19:56 2018
New Revision: 337202
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=337202&view=rev
Log:
[CMake] Give lldb tools functional install targets when building LLDB.framework
Summary:
This change makes the install targets for lldb tools functional when
build
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL337202: [CMake] Give lldb tools functional install targets
when building LLDB.framework (authored by xiaobai, committed by ).
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://review
labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49282#1163853, @xiaobai wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49282#1163517, @labath wrote:
>
> > I think this is fine (though the meaning of SKIP_LLDB_SERVER is subtly
> > different than SKIP_DEBUGSERVER), but while looking at this I got an i
stella.stamenova added a comment.
The CHECK-SAME expression on line 10 can no longer find the expected string in
the output. This is due to an extra `location = DW_OP_addr(000140004114) ,`
in the output between the two expected strings `CHECK-SAME: scope = global,
external`, so it looks lik
That sounds reasonable to me. I'll make a note to revisit this (I don't the
the cycles to do it right away but I'm planning a few more changes in the
area soon).
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Pavel Labath wrote:
> Ok, I see what you mean now.
>
> Looking at the other core file plugins (elf,
xiaobai added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49282#1164050, @labath wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49282#1163853, @xiaobai wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49282#1163517, @labath wrote:
> >
> > > I think this is fine (though the meaning of SKIP_LLDB_SERVER is subtly
> >
shafik updated this revision to Diff 155758.
shafik added a comment.
Refactoring test to use lldbinline
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49271
Files:
lldb.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libcxx/optional/Makefile
package
shafik marked 5 inline comments as done and 3 inline comments as done.
shafik added a comment.
@jingham @davide I believe I have addressed all your comments
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49271
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
ht
jasonmolenda added a subscriber: ramana-nvr.
jasonmolenda added a comment.
That's a good point Pavel. I tried to write one (below) but I never saw what
the original failure mode was. Venkata, can you help to make a test case that
fails before the patch and works after? Or explain what bug was
That's a good point Pavel. I tried to write one (below) but I never saw what
the original failure mode was. Venkata, can you help to make a test case that
fails before the patch and works after? Or explain what bug was being fixed
exactly? I could see that the code was wrong from reading it,
xiaobai created this revision.
xiaobai added reviewers: sas, labath.
Herald added a subscriber: mgorny.
Currently, if you build lldb-framework the entire framework doesn't
actually build. In order to build the entire framework, you need to actually
build lldb-suite. This abstraction doesn't feel q
xiaobai updated this revision to Diff 155790.
xiaobai added a comment.
Accidentally merged the contents of two commits into one. Removing the contents
of one of the commits from this one.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49406
Files:
CMakeLists.txt
cmake/modules/LLDBFramework.cmake
source/API/C
asmith created this revision.
asmith added reviewers: lldb-commits, aleksandr.urakov, rnk, zturner.
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
This is an alternative to https://reviews.llvm.org/D49368
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49410
Files:
lit/SymbolFile/PDB/class-layout.
teemperor created this revision.
teemperor added a reviewer: dblaikie.
After https://reviews.llvm.org/D49309 it became clear that we always need a
null-terminated string (for
the Python API), so we might as well change the API to accept an std::string&
instead of taking a StringRef and then alway
dblaikie accepted this revision.
dblaikie added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Seems good to me - though I haven't looked too closely/don't know this code
terribly well (so you're welcome to wait if you know someone else more
knowledgable might take a look too - or i
44 matches
Mail list logo