[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r369179 - Simplify code (NFC).

Author: adrian Date: Fri Aug 16 17:38:58 2019 New Revision: 369179 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=369179&view=rev Log: Simplify code (NFC). Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDWARF.cpp Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDW

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66370: [dotest] Add a dotest flag `--force-dwarf` to override the tested DWARF version.

aprantl added a comment. This is definitely more elegant than the current solution! Comment at: lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest.py:353 + +os.environ['CFLAGS_EXTRAS'] = cflags_extras Does this actually work with tests whose Makefiles manually se

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66370: [dotest] Add a dotest flag `--force-dwarf` to override the tested DWARF version.

JDevlieghere created this revision. JDevlieghere added reviewers: labath, aprantl, jankratochvil. Herald added a project: LLDB. On the matrix bot on GreenDragon [1] we want to run the test suite against different DWARF versions. The idea here is not to replace targeted tests for certain DWARF fe

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66248: [JIT][Command] Add "inject-condition" flag to conditional breakpoints

mib marked 2 inline comments as done. mib added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/breakpoint/fast_conditional_breakpoints/TestFastConditionalBreakpoints.py:45 + +def enable_injected_breakpoint_condition(self, cli): +exe

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66345: [lldb][NFC] Allow for-range iterating over StringList

amccarth added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/source/Commands/CommandObjectApropos.cpp:70 +max_len = std::max(max_len, command.size()); } Or ``` const size_t max_len = std::max_element(commands_found.begin(), commands_found.end())

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66248: [JIT][Command] Add "inject-condition" flag to conditional breakpoints

mib marked 3 inline comments as done. mib added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Breakpoint/BreakpointOptions.h:120 + /// BreakpointOptions(const char *condition, bool enabled = true, int32_t ignore = 0, bool one_shot = false, --

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66174: [Utility] Reimplement RegularExpression on top of llvm::Regex

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL369153: [Utility] Reimplement RegularExpression on top of llvm::Regex (authored by JDevlieghere, committed by ). Herald added a project: LLVM. Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits. Changed prior to com

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r369153 - [Utility] Reimplement RegularExpression on top of llvm::Regex

Author: jdevlieghere Date: Fri Aug 16 14:25:36 2019 New Revision: 369153 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=369153&view=rev Log: [Utility] Reimplement RegularExpression on top of llvm::Regex Originally I wanted to remove the RegularExpression class in Utility and replace it with llvm::R

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66174: [Utility] Reimplement RegularExpression on top of llvm::Regex

jingham accepted this revision. jingham added a comment. Pavel said "we'll just have to bite the bullet and say that our expressions are now (more or less) POSIX conformant"... We should say this somewhere users are likely to find. All the options that take regular expressions look like: (ll

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66174: [Utility] Reimplement RegularExpression on top of llvm::Regex

labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. lgtm. Thanks for doing this. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66174/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66174 ___ lldb-commits m

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66174: [Utility] Reimplement RegularExpression on top of llvm::Regex

JDevlieghere updated this revision to Diff 215645. JDevlieghere added a comment. Make RegularExpression POSIX compliant. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66174/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66174 Files: lldb/include/lldb/Breakpoint/BreakpointResolverFileRegex.h lldb/i

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66357: Fix GetDIEForDeclContext so it only returns entries matching the provided context

clayborg requested changes to this revision. clayborg added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed. Needs a test, but looks good. Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66357/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66357 _

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66250: [JIT][Unwinder] Add Trampoline ObjectFile and UnwindPlan support for FCB

clayborg added a comment. Why are we not just using ObjectFileJIT? I am guessing these breakpoint expressions create one of these by compiling the breakpoint expression and JIT'ing it just like any other expression. If this is the case, then why do we need to create a ObjectFileTrampoline? Seem

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66357: Fix GetDIEForDeclContext so it only returns entries matching the provided context

guiandrade created this revision. guiandrade added reviewers: clayborg, labath. guiandrade added projects: LLDB, clang. Herald added subscribers: lldb-commits, teemperor. guiandrade added a comment. This is a follow up of the investigation I mentioned in http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66357: Fix GetDIEForDeclContext so it only returns entries matching the provided context

guiandrade added a comment. This is a follow up of the investigation I mentioned in http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2019-August/015324.html. Please let me know if you guys think this makes sense. Thanks! Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66327: [dotest] Make it possible to forward CCC_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS to Make

labath added a comment. In D66327#1633251 , @JDevlieghere wrote: > They're not exactly the same, `CCC_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS` allows you to do cool > stuff like `'s/-g(lldb)?$/-gdwarf-5/'`. That is cool, and, at the same time, scary... I think it would be n

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66327: [dotest] Make it possible to forward CCC_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS to Make

JDevlieghere added a comment. In D66327#1633285 , @aprantl wrote: > You know, the first rule about CCC_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS is that you don't talk > about CCC_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS ;-) 🤐 > I suppose this is to implement the new lldb-matrix buildbot that tests

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66327: [dotest] Make it possible to forward CCC_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS to Make

aprantl added a comment. You know, the first rule about CCC_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS is that you don't talk about CCC_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS ;-) I suppose this is to implement the new lldb-matrix buildbot that tests various DWARF versions? Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://revie

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66345: [lldb][NFC] Allow for-range iterating over StringList

JDevlieghere accepted this revision as: JDevlieghere. JDevlieghere added a comment. LGTM with the inline comment. Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Utility/StringList.h:26 class StringList { + typedef std::vector StorageType; + This typedef is commonly `collectio

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66327: [dotest] Make it possible to forward CCC_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS to Make

JDevlieghere marked an inline comment as done. JDevlieghere added a comment. In D66327#1632684 , @labath wrote: > How do you envision this to be used? Via something like > `CCC_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS=foo ninja check-lldb` ? > > Overall, I think it would be nice

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66249: [JIT][Breakpoint] Add "BreakpointInjectedSite" and FCB Trampoline

aprantl added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Breakpoint/BreakpointInjectedSite.h:35 +/// "lldb/Breakpoint/BreakpointInjectedSite.h" Class that manages the injected +/// conditional breakpoints. +//---

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66345: [lldb][NFC] Allow for-range iterating over StringList

labath added a comment. In D66345#1633118 , @teemperor wrote: > Not sure if we can get rid of StringList so easily as we still have > SBStringList. We can keep the SBStringList. We can just have it be backed by a `vector` instead of the StringList thin

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66345: [lldb][NFC] Allow for-range iterating over StringList

teemperor updated this revision to Diff 215595. teemperor added a comment. Thanks! Not sure if we can get rid of StringList so easily as we still have SBStringList. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66345/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66345 Files: lldb/include/lldb/Uti

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r369113 - [lldb][NFC] Allow for-ranges on StringList

Author: teemperor Date: Fri Aug 16 07:27:35 2019 New Revision: 369113 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=369113&view=rev Log: [lldb][NFC] Allow for-ranges on StringList Modified: lldb/trunk/include/lldb/Utility/CompletionRequest.h lldb/trunk/include/lldb/Utility/StringList.h

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66345: [lldb][NFC] Allow for-range iterating over StringList

labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Definitely an improvement, though one day, i'd like to get rid of the StringList class (and various other XXXList classes) completely :) Comment at: lldb/unittests/Utility/S

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66345: [lldb][NFC] Allow for-range iterating over StringList

teemperor updated this revision to Diff 215586. teemperor added a comment. - Fixed some minor issues. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66345/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66345 Files: lldb/include/lldb/Utility/CompletionRequest.h lldb/include/lldb/Utility/StringList.h

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66345: [lldb][NFC] Allow for-range iterating over StringList

teemperor created this revision. teemperor added a reviewer: LLDB. Herald added subscribers: lldb-commits, abidh. Herald added a project: LLDB. Added support for for-range iterating over StringList. There is no reverse-iterator support because it seems no one is doing that in LLDB. Also added som

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66250: [JIT][Unwinder] Add Trampoline ObjectFile and UnwindPlan support for FCB

labath added a comment. In D66250#1632187 , @jasonmolenda wrote: > In D66250#1631200 , @labath wrote: > > > I have one high-level question. Who is generating the code inside the > > "trampoline" object file? Could

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66331: Save / restore selected platform in tests that may change it

labath added a comment. > I'm not sure if fixing this on a test-by-test basis is the right place for > it. It might be better to have dotest.py's run_suite() save the remote > platform and lldbtest.py's class Base setUpClass() method re-set the platform > before the test is invoked, in case it

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D66327: [dotest] Make it possible to forward CCC_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS to Make

labath added a comment. How do you envision this to be used? Via something like `CCC_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS=foo ninja check-lldb` ? Overall, I think it would be nice to avoid the tests being affected by the inherited environment variables because that opens the door for tests to unexpectedly fail or