[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D119918: [CMake] Rename TARGET_TRIPLE to LLVM_TARGET_TRIPLE

rovka accepted this revision. rovka added a comment. I'm happy if the buildbots are happy :D thanks. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119918/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119918 ___

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D119918: [CMake] Rename TARGET_TRIPLE to LLVM_TARGET_TRIPLE

rovka added a comment. Is this going to break for everyone that still passes TARGET_TRIPLE to cmake? If so, we should probably have a period where we support both. In particular, this might break some of our buildbots

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100261: [lldb] [gdb-remote server] Support selecting process via Hg

rovka added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS.cpp:2130 +return SendErrorResponse(llvm::make_error( +inconvertibleErrorCode(), "No current process and no PID provided")); + Just a

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100459: [lldb] [gdb-remote client] Refactor SetCurrentThread*()

rovka added a comment. This looks good to me, but I'll let others comment on whether or not we want to send extra leading zeroes for the thread ID. In my opinion it would be nice to 1) be consistent between all packages that deal with thread ids, and 2) send as little clutter as possible. But

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D101153: [lldb][NFC] Specify guidelines for API tests

rovka added a comment. This is awesome, thanks for writing this up! Comment at: lldb/docs/resources/test.rst:224 +tests the `SBProcess`, `SBThread`, and `SBFrame` classes. The same is true +for tests that exercise to breakpoints, watchpoints and sanitizers. +

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100146: [lldb] [gdb-remote client] Refactor handling qSupported

rovka accepted this revision. rovka added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100146/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100146 ___ lldb-commits mailing list

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100140: [lldb] [gdb-remote server] Refactor handling qSupported

rovka added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationServerCommon.cpp:843 - response.PutCString(";QThreadSuffixSupported+"); - response.PutCString(";QListThreadsInStopReply+"); - response.PutCString(";qEcho+");

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D96458: [LLDB] Add support for Arm64/Linux dynamic register sets

rovka added a comment. Hi Omair, I had a look and I think the commit message is slightly misleading because it says "Arm64 has dynamic features like SVE, Pointer Authentication and MTE", but then you don't set m_reg_infos_is_dynamic to true for SVE. This got me a bit confused at first. Maybe

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D82857: [LLDB] Add per-thread register infos shared pointer in gdb-remote

rovka added a comment. Sorry, I had one more comment :) I think that should be all from my side. Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/ProcessGDBRemote.cpp:403 + m_register_info_sp = std::make_shared(); + m_register_info_sp->Clear(); Is it

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D82857: [LLDB] Add per-thread register infos shared pointer in gdb-remote

rovka added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Utility/DynamicRegisterInfo.h:29 + DynamicRegisterInfo(DynamicRegisterInfo &) = default; void operator=(DynamicRegisterInfo &) = delete; I think operator= should be default too if the

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D82064: [ARM64] Add QEMU testing environment setup guide for SVE testing

rovka added a comment. Hi Omair, If this is intended to be more generally useful, I wonder if we should rename it to something else (e.g. lldb-qemu-howto.txt) and only use AArch64 SVE as a case study. In any case, thanks for writing this up! Comment at:

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D70381: Mark PR44037 tests as XFAIL on AArch64 Linux dwo

rovka added a subscriber: labath. rovka added a comment. In D70381#1749616 , @labath wrote: > Looks fine to me, but I am not running aarch64 tests. You might want to check > of @omjavaid is running them and whether he's ok with that. Otherwise, you >

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D70381: Mark PR44037 tests as XFAIL on AArch64 Linux dwo

rovka updated this revision to Diff 229794. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70381/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70381 Files: lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/breakpoint/breakpoint_locations/TestBreakpointLocations.py

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D70381: Mark PR44037 tests as XFAIL on AArch64 Linux dwo

rovka created this revision. rovka added reviewers: omjavaid, aprantl, labath. Herald added a subscriber: kristof.beyls. These tests are failing with various assertion failures, but they all throw the following error message first: error: a.out 0x002d: adding range [0x14-0x24) which has a

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D70303: Fix TestFormatters.py stepping too far

rovka updated this revision to Diff 229505. rovka added a comment. Addressed @labath's comment (test run in progress). Thanks for having a look! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70303/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70303 Files:

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D70303: Fix TestFormatters.py stepping too far

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG5f0c3bad2f03: Fix TestFormatters.py stepping too far (authored by rovka). Herald added a project: LLDB. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D70303: Fix TestFormatters.py stepping too far

rovka created this revision. rovka added reviewers: omjavaid, lawrence_danna. Herald added a subscriber: kristof.beyls. TestFormatters.py has a sequence of three 'next' commands to get past all the initializations in the test function. On AArch64 (and potentially other platforms), this was one