owenpshaw updated this revision to Diff 137420.
owenpshaw added a comment.
- Revert changes to SetLoadAddress (always use virtual address there)
- Override LoadInMemory in ObjectFileELF to just load segments using physical
address instead of using section load list
Passes tests, but I don't have
owenpshaw reopened this revision.
owenpshaw added a comment.
Reopening since the previous land was reverted
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42145
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb
Author: davide
Date: Wed Mar 7 10:06:12 2018
New Revision: 326919
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=326919&view=rev
Log:
[lldbtestsuite] llvm-objcopy is now required to run the lit tests.
There's now a test using llvm-objcopy in lit/.
This doesn't fail on the bot(s) because `llvm-objc
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-commits
wrote:
> Author: labath
> Date: Fri Feb 23 09:49:26 2018
> New Revision: 325927
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=325927&view=rev
> Log:
> Replace HashStringUsingDJB with llvm::djbHash
>
> Summary:
> The llvm function is
The hashing algorithm gives different values - at least for foobár - between
the two implementations. So if you build with an older clang, and test with a
new lldb, the type lookup fails.
Were the two algorithms supposed to be identical? It will mean that type
lookups in the output of older c
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Jim Ingham wrote:
> The hashing algorithm gives different values - at least for foobár - between
> the two implementations. So if you build with an older clang, and test with
> a new lldb, the type lookup fails.
>
This is not my case, I think? I'm building from
