[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58860: [build.py] Allow clang-cl to build files starting with '/U'

xiaobai created this revision. xiaobai added reviewers: zturner, labath. Herald added a reviewer: serge-sans-paille. clang-cl tries to match cl's interface, and treats /U as "Removes a predefined macro" as cl does. When you feed clang-cl a file that begins with '/U' (e.g. /Users/xiaobai/foo.c), cl

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58856: Delete dead code

aprantl created this revision. aprantl added reviewers: clayborg, jingham. This isn't used anywhere and since we have version control, I don't see a reason to keep it around. https://reviews.llvm.org/D58856 Files: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFASTParserClang.cpp Index: lldb/sou

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58838: Remove tautological #ifdefs

aprantl updated this revision to Diff 189003. aprantl added a comment. Removed DIEStack from this patch it distracts. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58838/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58838 Files: lldb/source/Target/ExecutionContext.cpp Index: lldb/source/Target/Ex

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58564: [Reproducers] Add command provider

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL355249: [Reproducers] Capture and replay interpreter commands. (authored by JDevlieghere, committed by ). Herald added a project: LLVM. Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits. Changed prior to commit:

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58564: [Reproducers] Add command provider

JDevlieghere added a comment. Addressed in commit. Thank you Pavel! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58564/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58564 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cg

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r355249 - [Reproducers] Capture and replay interpreter commands.

Author: jdevlieghere Date: Fri Mar 1 16:20:26 2019 New Revision: 355249 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=355249&view=rev Log: [Reproducers] Capture and replay interpreter commands. This patch adds the necessary logic to capture and replay commands entered into the command interpreter

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58838: Remove tautological #ifdefs

jingham added a comment. In D58838#1415646 , @aprantl wrote: > In D58838#1415637 , @zturner wrote: > > > Yea it would be nice if we could remove all of the `LLDB_CONFIGURATION_xxx` > > macros and just use either th

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58792: Add "operator bool" to SB APIs

jingham added a comment. In D58792#1415645 , @clayborg wrote: > In D58792#1415629 , @zturner wrote: > > > Out of curiosity, are there known, specific examples of users who rely on > > the exact mangling not changin

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58838: Remove tautological #ifdefs

aprantl added a comment. Also I should note that we can only use LLVM defines that are provided by the Xcode project until we reach the point where Apple builds LLDB with CMake and the CMake-generated Xcode file is good enough to replace the hand-written one. This is a transitional restriction,

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58838: Remove tautological #ifdefs

aprantl added a comment. In D58838#1415637 , @zturner wrote: > Yea it would be nice if we could remove all of the `LLDB_CONFIGURATION_xxx` > macros and just use either the LLVM ones or standard ones such as NDEBUG I generally agree with this, but we nee

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58792: Add "operator bool" to SB APIs

clayborg added a comment. In D58792#1415629 , @zturner wrote: > Out of curiosity, are there known, specific examples of users who rely on the > exact mangling not changing? yes. Xcode. For Swift, Xcode runs the LLDBRPC.framework in process which runs l

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58792: Add "operator bool" to SB APIs

jingham added a comment. In D58792#1415629 , @zturner wrote: > Out of curiosity, are there known, specific examples of users who rely on the > exact mangling not changing? Yes, both Xcode and lldb-rpc-server (an out-of-process dingus we made for Xcod

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58838: Remove tautological #ifdefs

zturner added a comment. Yea it would be nice if we could remove all of the `LLDB_CONFIGURATION_xxx` macros and just use either the LLVM ones or standard ones such as NDEBUG CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58838/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58838

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58167: Refactor user/group name resolving code

jingham added a comment. This is fine by me, though Greg I think still had an outstanding question. If he's satisfied, I am. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58167/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58167 ___ lldb-commits mailing

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58792: Add "operator bool" to SB APIs

clayborg added a comment. If this is new API I guess it is ok to have them all be const. I was mostly worried that you wouldn't be able to call a non const function from a const function. Do we have any IsValid() calls that are const? I believe we do. If so, how are we calling IsValid() if it i

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58792: Add "operator bool" to SB APIs

zturner added a comment. Out of curiosity, are there known, specific examples of users who rely on the exact mangling not changing? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58792/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58792 ___ lldb-commits m

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r355238 - Delete commented-out code.

Author: adrian Date: Fri Mar 1 14:30:31 2019 New Revision: 355238 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=355238&view=rev Log: Delete commented-out code. Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Host/common/ProcessRunLock.cpp Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Host/common/ProcessRunLock.cpp URL: http://l

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58792: Add "operator bool" to SB APIs

shafik added a comment. In D58792#1415390 , @clayborg wrote: > In D58792#1414964 , @labath wrote: > > > In D58792#1414191 , @shafik wrote: > > > > > It stood out to me that s

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58838: Remove tautological #ifdefs

aprantl added a comment. This doesn't apply to DieStack since it isn't an assert, but DieStack is dead code anyway... CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58838/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58838 ___ lldb-commits mailing list ll

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58838: Remove tautological #ifdefs

aprantl added a comment. But I'm sure that `LLDB_CONFIGURATION_BUILD_AND_INTEGRATION` also defines `NDEBUG` so the assert should be a noop, right? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58838/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58838 ___

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58842: Move ProcessInstanceInfo and similar to Utility

zturner added a comment. In D58842#1415526 , @labath wrote: > Hmm.. I think I've thought of (or remembered, because I have been thinking > about Utility too) a reason why it might be better to keep these in Host. > ProcessLaunchInfo cannot be trivially m

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58792: Add "operator bool" to SB APIs

labath updated this revision to Diff 188966. labath added a comment. Give up on constness and make all bool operators non-const. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58792/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58792 Files: include/lldb/API/SBAddress.h include/lldb/API/SBBlock.h

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58842: Move ProcessInstanceInfo and similar to Utility

labath added a comment. Hmm.. I think I've thought of (or remembered, because I have been thinking about Utility too) a reason why it might be better to keep these in Host. ProcessLaunchInfo cannot be trivially moved to Utility (and indeed, in this patch, you are keeping it in Host), because it

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58842: Move ProcessInstanceInfo and similar to Utility

labath added a comment. My main reason for creating D58167 was so that this move (*) could be done without leaving the remnants of the Dump function in the form DumpProcessInstance functions in Process.cpp (among other benefits I think that refactoring will bri

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58748: [ExpressionParser] Test GetClangResourceDir

labath added a reviewer: aprantl. labath added a subscriber: aprantl. labath added a comment. Looks fine to me, but maybe @aprantl could give this a quick look, as he's the one (IIRC) who introduced this function. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58748/new/ https://reviews

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58564: [Reproducers] Add command provider

labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. I have a couple of more comments, including some things I missed on the previous pass, but I don't want to hold this up any more. Feel free to commit after taking the last batch into consideration. Comment at: lldb/includ

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58792: Add "operator bool" to SB APIs

clayborg added a comment. In D58792#1414964 , @labath wrote: > In D58792#1414191 , @shafik wrote: > > > It stood out to me that some of the conversions were not `const` and I can > > see that `IsValid` is not consi

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58748: [ExpressionParser] Test GetClangResourceDir

xiaobai updated this revision to Diff 188952. xiaobai added a comment. Minor changes to make MacOS work CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58748/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58748 Files: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/paths/TestPaths.py source/Plugins/E

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58842: Move ProcessInstanceInfo and similar to Utility

zturner created this revision. zturner added reviewers: jingham, labath, JDevlieghere. Herald added subscribers: jdoerfert, mgorny, emaste. There are set of classes in Target that describe the parameters of a process - e.g. it's PID, name, user id, and similar. However, since it is a bare descr

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58838: Remove tautological #ifdefs

clayborg added a comment. I think we mostly wanted to catch these in the test suite. Probably best to convert to lldbassert CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58838/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58838 ___ lldb-commits mailing l

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58838: Remove tautological #ifdefs

clayborg added a comment. So it affects Apple directly! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58838/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58838 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailma

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58838: Remove tautological #ifdefs

clayborg requested changes to this revision. clayborg added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed. LLDB_CONFIGURATION_BUILD_AND_INTEGRATION doesn't have them. So you can change these to #if !defined(LLDB_CONFIGURATION_BUILD_AND_INTEGRATION) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION http

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58630: [lldb] [test] Pass appropriate -L&-Wl, -rpath for just-built libc++

mgorny updated this revision to Diff 188946. mgorny retitled this revision from "[lldb] [test] Pass appropriate -L for just-built libc++" to "[lldb] [test] Pass appropriate -L&-Wl,-rpath for just-built libc++". mgorny edited the summary of this revision. mgorny added a comment. Turns out LD_LIBR

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58838: Remove tautological #ifdefs

aprantl created this revision. aprantl added a reviewer: clayborg. These conditions appear to always be true. @clayborg do you remember the reason why these exist? https://reviews.llvm.org/D58838 Files: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFASTParserClang.cpp lldb/source/Target/Executi

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58833: Fix embedded Python initialization according to changes in version 3.7

zturner added reviewers: davide, stella.stamenova. zturner added a comment. Davide ran into this issue recently and tried to fix it, so I'm adding him here as a reviewer. Also Stella is interested in Python 3 support as well, so adding her also. Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST AC

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58833: Fix embedded Python initialization according to changes in version 3.7

tatyana-krasnukha created this revision. tatyana-krasnukha added reviewers: zturner, jingham. tatyana-krasnukha added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits. The `InitializePythonRAII` left the GIL locked for other threads when using Python >= 3.7. P.S. I'd appreciate any help

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58727: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58394 done right

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rLLDB355213: Resubmit r354706 with a fix for process launch. (authored by jingham, committed by ). Herald added a subscriber: teemperor. Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58727?vs=188579&

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r355213 - Resubmit r354706 with a fix for process launch.

Author: jingham Date: Fri Mar 1 10:13:38 2019 New Revision: 355213 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=355213&view=rev Log: Resubmit r354706 with a fix for process launch. When the debugger is run in sync mode, you need to be able to tell whether a hijacked resume is for some special pu

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58727: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58394 done right

jingham added a comment. Excellent, thanks! I didn't think to look there. Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58727/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58727 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.l

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58564: [Reproducers] Add command provider

JDevlieghere updated this revision to Diff 188932. JDevlieghere marked 3 inline comments as done. JDevlieghere added a comment. - Moved the logic into SBDebugger. - Created DataRecorder factory. - Stored DataRecorder as a field in Debugger. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D5

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58727: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58394 done right

labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Yes, that did the trick. The new test is passing on linux now as well. Regarding BTW, I see the option to "reopen a revision" in the drop down menu at the bottom of the page (the same one you

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58792: Add "operator bool" to SB APIs

labath added a comment. In D58792#1414191 , @shafik wrote: > It stood out to me that some of the conversions were not `const` and I can > see that `IsValid` is not consistently `const` across the API but after > talking to @jingham it is unfortunately so

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D58564: [Reproducers] Add command provider

labath added a comment. In D58564#1414410 , @JDevlieghere wrote: > Thanks Pavel. I've updated the patch with your suggestion. I agree it's a lot > better :-) > > I implemented the logic in the Debugger rather than the SBDebugger because I > think the la