Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB might not be handling DW_CFA_restore or DW_CFA_restore_extended correctly in all cases

> On Oct 8, 2020, at 10:37 PM, Greg Clayton wrote: > > > >> On Oct 8, 2020, at 10:29 PM, Jason Molenda wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Oct 8, 2020, at 10:06 PM, Jason Molenda wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Oct 8, 2020, at 9:17 PM, Greg Clayton wrote: > On Oct 8, 2020, at 8:5

Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB might not be handling DW_CFA_restore or DW_CFA_restore_extended correctly in all cases

> On Oct 8, 2020, at 10:29 PM, Jason Molenda wrote: > > > >> On Oct 8, 2020, at 10:06 PM, Jason Molenda wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Oct 8, 2020, at 9:17 PM, Greg Clayton wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Oct 8, 2020, at 8:55 PM, Jason Molenda wrote: Good bug find! It seems

Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB might not be handling DW_CFA_restore or DW_CFA_restore_extended correctly in all cases

> On Oct 8, 2020, at 10:06 PM, Jason Molenda wrote: > > > >> On Oct 8, 2020, at 9:17 PM, Greg Clayton wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Oct 8, 2020, at 8:55 PM, Jason Molenda wrote: >>> >>> Good bug find! >>> >>> It seems to me that DWARFCallFrameInfo should push the initial CIE register >>> set

Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB might not be handling DW_CFA_restore or DW_CFA_restore_extended correctly in all cases

> On Oct 8, 2020, at 9:17 PM, Greg Clayton wrote: > > > >> On Oct 8, 2020, at 8:55 PM, Jason Molenda wrote: >> >> Good bug find! >> >> It seems to me that DWARFCallFrameInfo should push the initial CIE register >> setup instructions as being the state at offset 0 in the function (in fact

Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB might not be handling DW_CFA_restore or DW_CFA_restore_extended correctly in all cases

> On Oct 8, 2020, at 9:17 PM, Greg Clayton wrote: > > > >> On Oct 8, 2020, at 8:55 PM, Jason Molenda wrote: >> >> Good bug find! >> >> It seems to me that DWARFCallFrameInfo should push the initial CIE register >> setup instructions as being the state at offset 0 in the function (in fact

Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB might not be handling DW_CFA_restore or DW_CFA_restore_extended correctly in all cases

> On Oct 8, 2020, at 8:55 PM, Jason Molenda wrote: > > Good bug find! > > It seems to me that DWARFCallFrameInfo should push the initial CIE register > setup instructions as being the state at offset 0 in the function (in fact > I'd say it's a bug if it's not). If that were done, then gettin

Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB might not be handling DW_CFA_restore or DW_CFA_restore_extended correctly in all cases

Good bug find! It seems to me that DWARFCallFrameInfo should push the initial CIE register setup instructions as being the state at offset 0 in the function (in fact I'd say it's a bug if it's not). If that were done, then getting RowAtIndex(0) should be synonymous with get-the-CIE-register-unw

Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB might not be handling DW_CFA_restore or DW_CFA_restore_extended correctly in all cases

On 2020-10-08, Greg Clayton via lldb-dev wrote: Hello LLDB devs, This is a deep dive into an issue I found in the LLDB handling of DWARF call frame information, so no need to read further if this doesn't interest you! I am in the process of adding some support to LLVM for parsing the opcode st

[lldb-dev] LLDB might not be handling DW_CFA_restore or DW_CFA_restore_extended correctly in all cases

Hello LLDB devs, This is a deep dive into an issue I found in the LLDB handling of DWARF call frame information, so no need to read further if this doesn't interest you! I am in the process of adding some support to LLVM for parsing the opcode state machines for CIE and FDE objects that produce

[lldb-dev] [Bug 47766] New: String formatter regex wrongly catching multi-dimensional types as well.

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47766 Bug ID: 47766 Summary: String formatter regex wrongly catching multi-dimensional types as well. Product: lldb Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: Linux