Hi,
I've got a problem with lldb deadlocking upon a call to
lldb::SBDebugger::Terminate().
I am currently using svn revision 247535 of llvm and lldb, and I know
that my code was working with svn revision 229496.
In short, I am doing the following steps:
lldb_debugger = lldb::SBDebugger::
Hi,
Thanks for the report. Since you are suspecting a deadlock, could you
post a backtrace of all the threads (thread apply all backtrace). It
would be best to move this discussion to a bug in llvm.org/bugs.
> I am currently using svn revision 247535 of llvm and lldb, and I know that my
> code w
Hi,
Interesting results. We were discussing the same thing last week. I
was somewhat skeptical to the ideal as I am afraid of increased
flakyness -- LLDB has hardcoded timeout values in a lot of places, and
with increased cpu contention, we might start to see this code failing
because the other si
Hello all,
The following question came up while fixing up handling of process detach.
when detaching from a running process, on some platforms LLDB needs to
stop it first. Is this stop something that should be hidden from the
public view or not?
I.e. if the process state is Running, and I do a p
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24958
Bug ID: 24958
Summary: lldb::SBDebugger::Terminate() results in Deadlock
Product: lldb
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Hi Pavel,
thanks for your quick reply.
I filed a bug at https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24958.
I'll try to determine a more precise revision range for that issue. I am
currently using svn (checking out lldb manually into llvm/tools).
Do you have a recommended workflow for git in such a s
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24959
Bug ID: 24959
Summary: Mismatch between binary and host architectures unless
absolute path is given
Product: lldb
Version: 3.7
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
S
The next LLVM social in Paris will happen on October 15th, 2015. Everyone
interested in LLVM, Clang, lldb, Polly, ... is invited to join.
Note that we have slightly changed the meetup format: from now on we will
start with a presentation, which will be followed-up by the usual informal
social.
Fo
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Pavel Labath wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Interesting results. We were discussing the same thing last week. I
> was somewhat skeptical to the ideal as I am afraid of increased
> flakyness -- LLDB has hardcoded timeout values in a lot of places, and
> with increased cpu conten
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24974
Bug ID: 24974
Summary: Debian Makefile lldb build is broken
Product: lldb
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Prio
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24974
Todd Fiala changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|lldb-dev@lists.llvm.or
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24976
Bug ID: 24976
Summary: Data from SBProcess::PutSTDIN appears in
SBProcess::GetSTDOUT
Product: lldb
Version: 3.6
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
12 matches
Mail list logo
