vsk updated this revision to Diff 219648.
vsk marked an inline comment as done.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67376/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67376
Files:
lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h
lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/decorators.py
lldb/packages/Pytho
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h:258
+
+using CallSiteParameterArray = std::unique_ptr>;
+
aprantl wrote:
> vsk wrote:
> > grandinj wrote:
> > > the way this is being used seems to indicate it can be
> > >std::vector
vsk updated this revision to Diff 219646.
vsk marked 4 inline comments as done.
vsk added a comment.
- Fix return address lookup when the immediate parent frame is inlined.
- Tighten the test so that it actually verifies that tail calls, inlining, etc.
occur, instead of assuming :).
- Add/move va
vsk planned changes to this revision.
vsk marked an inline comment as done.
vsk added a comment.
While tightening up the test case I think I found an issue with the way inlined
frames are handled. I need to take a closer look.
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h:25
vsk marked an inline comment as done.
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDWARF.cpp:3752
+LocationInCaller = parse_simple_location(i);
+break;
+ }
aprantl wrote:
> vsk wrote:
> > aprantl wrote
vsk updated this revision to Diff 219573.
vsk marked an inline comment as done.
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added a comment.
- Addressed review feedback, split out unrelated changes, and improved test
coverage.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67376/new/
h
vsk planned changes to this revision.
vsk added a comment.
TODO:
- Split out llvm change.
- Add a test to validate that lldb skips inline frames when evaluating
DW_OP_entry_value.
Comment at:
lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/param_entry_vals/basic_entry_va
vsk updated this revision to Diff 219462.
vsk marked 7 inline comments as done.
vsk added a comment.
- Partially address review feedback.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67376/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67376
Files:
lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h
lldb/include
vsk added a comment.
Looks good overall, especially the testing.
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Utility/Scalar.h:107
+ /// Return the most efficient Scalar::Type for the requested size.
+ static Type GetBestType(size_t bit_size, bool sign);
+
JDevlieghere wrot
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks a lot!
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67378/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67378
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-comm
vsk updated this revision to Diff 219442.
vsk added a comment.
- Clean up the test.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67376/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67376
Files:
lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h
lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/decorators.py
lldb/packages
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: aprantl, friss, jasonmolenda, jingham.
Herald added subscribers: llvm-commits, hiraditya.
Herald added a project: LLVM.
Add support for evaluating DW_OP_entry_value. This involves:
- Teaching clang to emit debug entry values when the debugger tuning
vsk abandoned this revision.
vsk added a subscriber: shafik.
vsk added a comment.
I don't think this got a lot of buy-in. Let's revisit this if the need to
revamp CompilerType becomes more pressing.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43912/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D4391
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, lgtm.
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65594/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65594
___
lldb-comm
vsk added a comment.
Looks like a nice/reasonable cleanup, thanks!
Based on the coverage report
(https://teemperor.de/lldb-coverage/coverage/Users/vsk/src/llvm.org-lldbsan/llvm/tools/lldb/source/Breakpoint/BreakpointList.cpp.html#L217)
and benchmarks (https://teemperor.de/lldb-bench/static.html
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, lgtm!
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55761/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55761
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-comm
vsk added a comment.
+ 1 to this. If there's a tidy plugin for misleading indention, that might
address some of Adrian's concerns.
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55574/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55574
_
vsk added a subscriber: filcab.
vsk added a comment.
For compiling/linking, I think we can get by using lit substitutions to fill in
platform-specific options? iOS testing for Swift is done this way (both
on-device and simulator), as is testing for the profiling runtime. Dan and
@filcab are mor
vsk accepted this revision as: vsk.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, lgtm.
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54385
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53731#1276732, @zturner wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53731#1276660, @jingham wrote:
>
> > Could you also use Vedant's new FileCheck dotest test class? That should
> > allow you to write the tests exactly as you are, but use the dotest
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, lgtm.
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53415
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org
vsk updated this revision to Diff 169471.
vsk added a comment.
- Address comments from @stella.stamenova
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53175
Files:
lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/configuration.py
lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest.py
lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lldbtest.p
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: stella.stamenova, zturner.
This allows bots which haven't updated to pass in --filecheck to dotest.py to
run more tests. FileCheck-dependent tests will continue to fail.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53175
Files:
lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478#1262710, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> Unfortunately, the bots are broken because of the FileCheck issue, so I can't
> confirm with them, but I see a number of these tests fail in our local
> testing. Some fail on both Windows and Linux and s
vsk added a comment.
Ping?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50155
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/target_var/globals.ll:1
+source_filename = "globals.c"
+target datalayout = "e-m:o-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
davide wrote:
> vsk wrote:
> > Should we check in bitcode in
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/target_var/globals.ll:1
+source_filename = "globals.c"
+target datalayout = "e-m:o-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
Should we check in bitcode instead? That might make it easie
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dosep.py:1693
for core in cores:
dst = core.replace(test_directory, "")[1:]
dst = dst.replace(os.path.sep, "-")
Instead of redefining test_directory, please use 'test_sub
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h:304
+public:
+ CallEdge(const char *mangled_name, lldb::addr_t return_pc);
+
aprantl wrote:
> vsk wrote:
> > vsk wrote:
> > > aprantl wrote:
> > > > Does this also work for C functions? I
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h:304
+public:
+ CallEdge(const char *mangled_name, lldb::addr_t return_pc);
+
aprantl wrote:
> Does this also work for C functions? If yes, would `symbol_name` be a more
> accurate descri
vsk updated this revision to Diff 168155.
vsk marked an inline comment as done.
vsk added a comment.
- Address feedback from Adrian.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
Files:
lldb/include/lldb/API/SBFrame.h
lldb/include/lldb/Core/FormatEntity.h
lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Block.h
lldb/include
vsk added a comment.
Could you describe how the test exercises DW_FORM_implicit_const support? It's
not immediately clear to me.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52689
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin
vsk added a comment.
Friendly ping.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDWARFDebugMap.cpp:1531
+ if (m_compile_unit_infos.size() > 1)
+return 0;
+
sgraenitz wrote:
> sgraenitz wrote:
> > Skipping AddOSOARanges() here.
> > Could you leave an in-sourc
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFUnit.cpp:431
const size_t num_ranges =
-die->GetAttributeAddressRanges(dwarf, this, ranges, false);
+die->GetAttributeAddressRanges(dwarf, this, ranges, check_hi_lo_pc);
if (num_
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: lldb/source/Target/StackFrameList.cpp:331
+dfs(next_callee);
+if (ambiguous)
+ return;
aprantl wrote:
> On what path can this happen? Aren't all paths that set `ambiguous=true`
> returning immediate
vsk updated this revision to Diff 167148.
vsk marked an inline comment as done.
vsk added a comment.
- Use std::make_shared(...), instead of StackFrameSP(new ...).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
Files:
lldb/include/lldb/API/SBFrame.h
lldb/include/lldb/Core/FormatEntity.h
lldb/include/lld
vsk updated this revision to Diff 167038.
vsk added a comment.
The bug I thought I saw in CallEdge::GetReturnPCAddress turned out to be an
issue I introduced in dsymutil. It's not correct for dsymutil to relocate the
return PC value in TAG_call_site entries, because the correct section slide
of
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: labath, jingham, JDevlieghere.
Herald added subscribers: eraman, aprantl.
Set the "mydir" attribute of an inline test on the test-specific class,
instead of on the base InlineTest class.
This makes it possible to run dotest.py on a directory contain
vsk planned changes to this revision.
vsk added a comment.
While testing this out, I found an issue with CallEdge::GetReturnPCAddress.
Getting the load address there adds an unnecessary slide to the PC. I'll try to
have that worked out next week.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
vsk updated this revision to Diff 166534.
vsk added a comment.
As discussed offline, print out a note when stepping out of a frame with
artificial ancestors explaining that they were skipped while stepping out. See
the added test: functionalities/tail_call_frames/thread_step_out_message.
https
vsk updated this revision to Diff 166394.
vsk added a comment.
Teach SBThread::StepOut and SBThread::ReturnFromFrame to behave as-if
artificial frames were not present.
This preserves the current behavior of "finish" and "thread return". The
alternatives -- stepping out into an artificial frame
vsk planned changes to this revision.
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478#1241264, @jingham wrote:
> Can you add a test that makes sure that when you stop in a frame that has
> artificial frames above it, and then you do "finish", or "step out" past the
> end of frame 0, the
vsk updated this revision to Diff 166378.
vsk added a comment.
I've added SB API support (SBFrame::IsArtificial), a SB API test, fleshed out
the remaining tests, and rebased. PTAL, thanks!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
Files:
lldb/include/lldb/API/SBFrame.h
lldb/include/lldb/Core/FormatE
vsk updated this revision to Diff 165613.
vsk marked 6 inline comments as done.
vsk added a comment.
Herald added a subscriber: mgorny.
Sorry for the delay, I was busy with other work. I think I've addressed the
review feedback. PTAL.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50751
Files:
lldb/CMakeLists.tx
vsk added a comment.
Please clang-format your diffs.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51520
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
vsk added a comment.
This LGTM. Davide?
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51930
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
vsk added a comment.
I think it'd be useful to test the driver output specifically. The kind of
testing lldb-test facilitates might not be a good fit here (too low-level).
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51930
___
lldb-commits m
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/data-formatter/data-formatter-stl/libcxx/variant/TestDataFormatterLibcxxVariant.py:70
+self.expect("frame variable v_no_value",
+substrs=['v_no_value = No Value'])
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
Looks great, thanks!
Comment at: source/Plugins/Disassembler/llvm/DisassemblerLLVMC.cpp:176
bool got_op = false;
-std::shared_ptr disasm_sp(GetDisassembler());
-if (disasm_sp) {
- const ArchSpec &arch = disasm_s
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/Disassembler/llvm/DisassemblerLLVMC.h:81
+ struct Guard {
+DisassemblerLLVMC *m_instance;
+Guard(DisassemblerLLVMC *instance, InstructionLLVMC *inst,
This is nice. Do you think it might be even safer
vsk updated this revision to Diff 162491.
vsk retitled this revision from "WIP: Expose FileCheck-style testing within
lldb inline tests" to "Allow use of self.filecheck in LLDB tests (c.f
self.expect)".
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added reviewers: teemperor, aprantl, zturner.
vsk
vsk updated this revision to Diff 162416.
vsk marked 4 inline comments as done.
vsk added a comment.
Thanks for the feedback!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
Files:
lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Block.h
lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h
lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/SymbolFile.h
lldb/include/ll
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h:331
+ /// \ref resolved.
+ union {
+const char *mangled_name;
aprantl wrote:
> `llvm::PointerUnion` ?
It's not possible to use PointerUnion here because `const char *` has 1-byte
al
vsk added a comment.
Ping.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM. This is NFC, it seems. There's a FIXME in Preprocessor.h about the
lifetime of SelectorTable eventually not being tied to Preprocessor, but this
is correct for now.
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
vsk accepted this revision as: vsk.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, LGTM!
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50481
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
(LGTM with the second comment addressed.)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50997
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.o
vsk added a comment.
Thanks so much for doing this!
Comment at: lit/Suite/lit.cfg:28
+ resource_dir = subprocess.check_output(config.cmake_cxx_compiler +
+ ' -print-resource-dir', shell=True)
+ runtime = os.path.join(resource_dir[:-1],
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/Language/CPlusPlus/LibCxx.cpp:46
+ // Member __f_ has type __base*, the contents of which will either directly
+ // hold a pointer to the callable object or vtable entry which will hold the
+ // type information need to dis
vsk created this revision.
This patch isn't quite ready for review. It's a simple proof-of-concept which
shows what it would take to make FileCheck available within lldb inline tests.
I'll kick off a discussion about this on lldb-dev.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50751
Files:
lldb/packages/Pyt
vsk updated this revision to Diff 160666.
vsk retitled this revision from "WIP: Basic tail call frame support" to "Add
support for artificial tail call frames".
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added reviewers: aprantl, probinson, JDevlieghere, jingham, friss, zturner.
vsk removed subs
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, looks good with nitpicks.
Comment at: unittests/Core/RangeTest.cpp:139
+ RangeT r;
+ // FIXME: This is probably not intended.
+ EXPECT_TRUE(r.ContainsEndInclusive(0));
-
vsk updated this revision to Diff 160224.
vsk added a comment.
Herald added a subscriber: mgrang.
Rebase, and update the patch to use DW_AT_call_return_pc information.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50478
Files:
lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Block.h
lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h
lldb/include/
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, LGTM!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50225
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
vsk created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: JDevlieghere.
This is a prototype of tail call frame support for lldb based on
compiler support from https://reviews.llvm.org/D49887. It isn't ready for
review. I'm sharing the
proof-of-concept to give a heads-up about this coming down the pip
vsk updated this revision to Diff 159339.
vsk retitled this revision from "[IRMemoryMap] Shrink Allocation by
sizeof(addr_t) (NFC)" to "[IRMemoryMap] Shrink Allocation make it move-only
(NFC)".
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added a comment.
- Make Allocation move-only. This should
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: teemperor, lhames.
Profiling data show that Allocation::operator= is hot, see:
https://teemperor.de/lldb-bench/data/arithmetic.svg
Reorder a few fields within Allocation to avoid implicit structure
padding and shrink the structure. This should ma
vsk added a comment.
Thanks for doing this :)!
Comment at: source/Symbol/CompileUnit.cpp:111
// TODO: order these by address
m_functions.push_back(funcSP);
}
Is m_functions used to do anything crucial?
I see a use in Dump, but it seems like you could re
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, LGTM.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50149
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: aprantl, jasonmolenda.
Herald added subscribers: chrib, krytarowski, mgorny, srhines.
This code looks like a good reference for building a new unwinder, but
is currently unused, so there's no need to keep it.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50155
Files:
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50087#1183982, @labath wrote:
> I am not too familiar with this code, but the descriptions seem to make sense.
>
> However, since you have kind of opened up the `Optional` discussion, I'll use
> this opportunity to give my take on it:
>
> I've wa
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: labath, jasonmolenda, tberghammer.
Clarify how StackFrameList works by documenting its methods. Also,
delete some dead code and insert some TODOs.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50087
Files:
lldb/include/lldb/Target/StackFrameList.h
lldb/source/Tar
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, LGTM. This looks pretty cut and dry. The evaluator shouldn't try to
take the address of an rvalue.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48303
___
lldb-co
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM, thanks!
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48450
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cg
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119512, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> I can look into the failure - but can you XFAIL the test rather than skipping
> it and log a bug, so that we can track the failure rather than potentially
> assuming down the line that the test is not me
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119487, @vsk wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119479, @stella.stamenova wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119471, @vsk wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119396, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> > >
>
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119479, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119471, @vsk wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119396, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> >
> > > While you are at it, can you make sure this works on Windows? Th
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47646#1119396, @stella.stamenova wrote:
> While you are at it, can you make sure this works on Windows? The current
> version of the test that is checked in fails.
Sorry about that. Could you point me to the error message?
https://reviews.llv
vsk created this revision.
vsk added a reviewer: labath.
Change the syntax of the malloc and free commands in lldb-test's
ir-memory-map subcommand to:
::= = malloc
::= free
This should make it easier to read and extend tests in the future, e.g
to test IRMemoryMap::WriteMemory or dou
vsk updated this revision to Diff 149355.
vsk marked 2 inline comments as done.
vsk added a comment.
- Address Pavel's feedback, remove a questionable FIXME.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47551
Files:
lit/Expr/Inputs/ir-memory-map-basic.test
lit/Expr/Inputs/ir-memory-map-overlap1.test
lit/Exp
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47551#1117086, @lhames wrote:
> LGTM.
>
> I haven't looked at process memory management. How hard would your FIXME be
> to implement?
After looking at this more carefully, I think the FIXME makes a bad
prescription. It's based on the assumptio
vsk updated this revision to Diff 149198.
vsk added a reviewer: lhames.
vsk added a comment.
- Don't insert extra padding bytes when `alignment` = 1.
- + Lang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47551
Files:
lit/Expr/Inputs/ir-memory-map-basic.test
lit/Expr/Inputs/ir-memory-map-overlap1.test
lit/Ex
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: labath, zturner, jingham, aprantl.
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
This prevents Malloc from allocating the same chunk of memory twice, as
a byproduct of an alignment adjustment which gave the client access to
unallocated memory.
Prior to t
vsk updated this revision to Diff 149173.
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added a comment.
- Really fix the allocation overlap test. The previous version of this patch
would not detect overlaps in which the end of the new allocation is contained
within an existing allocation.
> The
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: tools/lldb-test/lldb-test.cpp:503
+ uint8_t Alignment;
+ int Matches = sscanf(Line.data(), "malloc %lu %hhu", &Size, &Alignment);
+ if (Matches != 2)
labath wrote:
> is `Line` null-terminated here? Also a size_t arg shoul
vsk updated this revision to Diff 149159.
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added a comment.
- Use %zu, and improve detection of overlapping allocations.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47508
Files:
lit/Expr/TestIRMemoryMap.test
source/Target/Process.cpp
tools/lldb-test/lldb-test.cpp
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: jingham, davide, labath, zturner.
This teaches lldb-test how to launch a process, set up an IRMemoryMap,
and issue memory allocations in the target process through the map. This
makes it possible to test IRMemoryMap in a targeted way.
The main motiv
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thank you, lgtm.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44507
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listin
vsk accepted this revision.
vsk added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks @aprantl!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44342
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listin
vsk updated this revision to Diff 136656.
vsk added a comment.
- Clarify that the log_categories macro argument is for logging to the "lldb"
channel.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43912
Files:
include/lldb/Symbol/CompilerType.h
include/lldb/Utility/Log.h
source/Plugins/ExpressionParser/Clang
vsk updated this revision to Diff 136640.
vsk retitled this revision from "[Symbol] Add InvalidType, a force-checked
recoverable error" to "[Symbol] Add InvalidTypeError, a force-checked
recoverable error".
vsk added a comment.
- While playing around with InvalidTypeError, I found that it's usef
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: include/lldb/Utility/Log.h:249-254
+ ::lldb_private::Log *log_private = (log);
\
+ if (log_private)
\
+log_private->FormatError(::std:
vsk updated this revision to Diff 136450.
vsk added a comment.
> The problem with your RETURN_IF_UNEXPECTED macro is that it make it
> impossible to put a breakpoint only on the "type was invalid case." To catch
> that happening while debugging you'd have to write a conditional breakpoint
> tha
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43912#1023078, @jingham wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43912#1022916, @aprantl wrote:
>
> > > Going forward, we should transition to a model in which CompilerTypes are
> > > either valid or do not exist.
> >
> > I don't understand very wel
vsk updated this revision to Diff 136433.
vsk marked an inline comment as done.
vsk edited the summary of this revision.
vsk added a comment.
- Address some review feedback.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43912
Files:
include/lldb/Symbol/CompilerType.h
include/lldb/Utility/Log.h
source/Plugins
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at:
source/Plugins/ExpressionParser/Clang/ClangExpressionDeclMap.cpp:335-340
+if (llvm::Error E = user_type_or_err.takeError()) {
+ std::string Reason = llvm::toString(std::move(E));
+ if (log)
+log->Printf("%s", Reason.c_
vsk created this revision.
vsk added reviewers: labath, zturner, davide, aprantl, lhames.
LLDB CompilerTypes may be invalid, i.e they should be checked for
validity before use.
Compared to a more typical model in which only valid types exist [1],
this has a few disadvantages:
- The debugger is g
vsk added a comment.
I'm concerned about the time it takes to run the test suite. If we can get
decent test coverage of this patch without adding a new debug info flavor,
that'd be ideal.
Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lldbtest.py:718
vsk added a comment.
Thanks! I'll clean up the issues you pointed out before committing.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43662
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
301 - 400 of 436 matches
Mail list logo