If you have a library that has a version number of 0.0.0,
uint32_t SBModule::GetVersion(uint32_t *versions, uint32_t num_versions)
will return a result of 2 (which is the number of elements it put into
num_versions) and the two elements it actually stuffed into the versions array
will be {UIN
Hi,
I've just tagged 7.1.0-rc1. Testers, please begin testing and reporting
results.
Thanks,
Tom
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Thanks for the background, David!
I've removed the platform in r357086.
Cheers,
Jonas
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 5:42 AM David Earlam
wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
>
> I agree you can remove Kalimba as a platform.
> We'll manage bringing it back upstream should we re-engage with llvm/lldb
> for Kalimba.
>
>
Sorry, was traveling and the internet wasn't good enough for git.
Thanks for pushing a fix Pavel!
- Raphael
Am Mi., 27. März 2019 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
:
>
> On 26/03/2019 14:48, David Zarzycki via lldb-dev wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 26, 2019, at 3:07 AM, Jan Kratochvil
> >>
On 26/03/2019 14:48, David Zarzycki via lldb-dev wrote:
On Mar 26, 2019, at 3:07 AM, Jan Kratochvil
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 19:47:36 +0100, David Zarzycki via lldb-dev
wrote:
Also, given that two of the test failures are Intel specific (the
mxcsr register write failures), what class of ha
Hi Jonas,
I agree you can remove Kalimba as a platform.
We'll manage bringing it back upstream should we re-engage with llvm/lldb for
Kalimba.
Some background:
As CSR (Cambridge Silicon Radio plc) we experimented with using lldb for the
Kalimba DSP.
CSR plc was acquired by Qualcomm in Augu
On 26/03/2019 23:16, Jonas Devlieghere via lldb-dev wrote:
Yesterday I stumbled upon the initialization code for the "Kalimba"
platform. It looks like this was added in 2014 and never had any tests.
If nobody is relying on this platform, I propose to remove it.
Review: https://reviews.llvm.org
