[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147370: [lldb] fixing #61727 fixing incorrect variable displaying with DW_OP_div

jwnhy updated this revision to Diff 519735. jwnhy added a comment. Update the patch for better naming. The assertion is correct, I somehow delete a file directive from the assembly generated by clang. It should work now...Thanks a lot for checking this. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147370: [lldb] fixing #61727 fixing incorrect variable displaying with DW_OP_div

jwnhy updated this revision to Diff 519733. jwnhy added a comment. Update the patch to pass the assertion. Sorry I forget to enable these on my machine. Given that said, this assertion seems pretty weird to me. Since this assembly is also generated by clang (with handcrafted DWARF, this

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147370: [lldb] fixing #61727 fixing incorrect variable displaying with DW_OP_div

jwnhy added a comment. In D147370#4314617 , @jwnhy wrote: > I have updated the testcase in the patch and remove the linker stage (using > "-c"). > But I don't have an Arm devices, can anyone help me test it? Asked one of my friend to tested on M1

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147370: [lldb] fixing #61727 fixing incorrect variable displaying with DW_OP_div

jwnhy added a comment. I have updated the testcase in the patch and remove the linker stage (using "-c"). But I don't have an Arm devices, can anyone help me test it? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147370/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147370

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147370: [lldb] fixing #61727 fixing incorrect variable displaying with DW_OP_div

jwnhy updated this revision to Diff 518975. jwnhy added a comment. Update the testcase to resolve cross-platform issue. This new testcase is hand-crafted with DW_OP_div. Therefore, it no longer require to be linked and executed. Just directly call lldb on this object file and use "p g" to see if

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147370: [lldb] fixing #61727 fixing incorrect variable displaying with DW_OP_div

jwnhy marked an inline comment as done. jwnhy added a comment. In D147370#4309481 , @Michael137 wrote: > @jwnhy Let me know which name and email I should attribute the patch to Oh, sorry. I am LU Hongyi, and the email is jwn...@gmail.com, my github

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147370: [lldb] fixing #61727 fixing incorrect variable displaying with DW_OP_div

jwnhy marked an inline comment as done. jwnhy added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/test/Shell/SymbolFile/DWARF/x86/DW_OP_div-with-signed.s:3 + + # RUN: %clang --target=x86_64-pc-linux -o %t %s + # RUN: %lldb %t -o "b f" -o "r" -o "c" -o "c" -o "expression -T -- i" \

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147370: [lldb] fixing #61727 fixing incorrect variable displaying with DW_OP_div

jwnhy updated this revision to Diff 517784. jwnhy marked an inline comment as done. jwnhy added a comment. Updated the patch to include the original code. Could you please help me push it to the main codebase?, as I don't have the push right to the repo. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147606: [lldb] fix #61942, discard "empty" ranges in DWARF to better handle gcc binary

jwnhy added a comment. Ping! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147606/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147606 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147370: [lldb] fixing #61727 fixing incorrect variable displaying with DW_OP_div

jwnhy added a comment. Ping! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147370/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147370 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147606: [lldb] fix #61942, discard "empty" ranges in DWARF to better handle gcc binary

jwnhy added a comment. In D147606#4246832 , @JDevlieghere wrote: > The change looks fine and regardless of whether this makes sense or even > complies with the standard, we should be resilient against it. I would like > to see a test though. It seems

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147606: [lldb] fix #61942, discard "empty" ranges in DWARF to better handle gcc binary

jwnhy updated this revision to Diff 512362. jwnhy added a comment. Updated the patch to remove unncessary checks and added a testcase. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147606/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147606 Files: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFUnit.cpp

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147370: [lldb] fixing #61727 fixing incorrect variable displaying with DW_OP_div

jwnhy updated this revision to Diff 512350. jwnhy added a comment. Herald added a reviewer: jdoerfert. Herald added subscribers: jplehr, sstefan1. Thanks a lot for the suggestion. I added a assembly testcase for "DW_OP_div". Also, since I don't have the permission to push, if the patch is good to

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147606: [lldb] fix #61942, discard "empty" ranges in DWARF to better handle gcc binary

jwnhy added a comment. In D147606#4246832 , @JDevlieghere wrote: > The change looks fine and regardless of whether this makes sense or even > complies with the standard, we should be resilient against it. I would like > to see a test though. Thanks a

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147606: [lldb] fix #61942, discard "empty" ranges in DWARF to better handle gcc binary

jwnhy added a comment. In D147606#4245804 , @DavidSpickett wrote: > I'm not familiar with this code, but the issue as explained I think I > understand. > > It seems like you're checking for empty ranges in two places, what does each > one do? > > Is

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147606: [lldb] fix #61942, discard "empty" ranges in DWARF to better handle gcc binary

jwnhy created this revision. jwnhy added reviewers: Michael137, DavidSpickett, JDevlieghere. Herald added a project: All. jwnhy requested review of this revision. Herald added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits. This patch resolves an issue that lldb not be able to match the

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147425: [lldb] fix #61728 wrong parameter value display represented via DW_OP_deref and DW_OP_lt

jwnhy created this revision. jwnhy added a reviewer: JDevlieghere. Herald added a project: All. jwnhy requested review of this revision. Herald added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits. This patch resolves an issue where a value is incorrectly displayed if it is represented

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147370: [lldb] fixing #61727 fixing incorrect variable displaying with DW_OP_div

jwnhy updated this revision to Diff 510285. jwnhy added a comment. Update the patch to include a small regression test. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147370/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147370 Files:

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D147370: [lldb] fixing #61727 fixing incorrect variable displaying with DW_OP_div

jwnhy created this revision. jwnhy added reviewers: Michael137, DavidSpickett. Herald added a project: All. jwnhy requested review of this revision. Herald added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits. This patch resolves an issue where a value is incorrectly displayed if it is

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D146919: Fix Issue #61706

jwnhy added a comment. It seems this is more complicated than I originally thought. My fix is also flawed when it comes the following program. Let `overhang_bytes = 0` will overflow the otherside by 1 bit and thus output a wrong value. But changing everything to signed does not resolve this

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D138197: [lldb] Fix bitfield incorrectly printing when field crosses a storage unit

jwnhy added a comment. Hi, guys, I have met this issue #61706 . The case I provided shows that even without DWARF v2, this problem still exists. I wonder if such modification is really needed or not. Also, I am not sure changing all these to

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D146919: Fix Issue #61706

jwnhy created this revision. jwnhy added reviewers: clayborg, jingham. Herald added a project: All. jwnhy requested review of this revision. Herald added a project: LLDB. Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits. As described in #61706 , the