Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm] r343874 - DwarfDebug: Pick next location in case of missing location at block begin

2018-10-05 Thread Vedant Kumar via lldb-dev
Sadly, after this commit TestDataFormatterLibcxxList.py started failing with: ``` output: Process 67333 stopped * thread #1, queue = 'com.apple.main-thread', stop reason = step over frame #0: 0x00010eb0 a.out`main at main.cpp:33:16 30 (text_list.push_back(std::string("smart"))

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm] r343874 - DwarfDebug: Pick next location in case of missing location at block begin

2018-10-05 Thread Matthias Braun via lldb-dev
So what should we do? Revert the llvm commit, fix the LLDB test, xfail on lldb? I'd be fine with any but don't want to learn how lldb tests work at this moment... > On Oct 5, 2018, at 4:11 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-commits > wrote: > > Sadly, after this commit TestDataFormatterLibcxxList.py s

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm] r343874 - DwarfDebug: Pick next location in case of missing location at block begin

2018-10-05 Thread Vedant Kumar via lldb-dev
No worries, I’ve relaxed the test for now in r343899 to get the bots going again. Essentially, the test will just step one more time to make sure the full effect of the push_back() is visible. If folks on lldb-dev (cc’d) have a better idea we can try it out. vedant > On Oct 5, 2018, at 4:15 PM

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm] r343874 - DwarfDebug: Pick next location in case of missing location at block begin

2018-10-05 Thread Jim Ingham via lldb-dev
So in the test scenario, we have this code: printf("// Set second break point at this line."); (text_list.push_back(std::string("!!!"))); and we have a breakpoint on the printf line. We've just continued to hit the breakpoint at printf. Then we do next twice. That should certainly get