This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL260368: Fix handling of the arm IT instruction in the
unwinder (authored by tberghammer).
Changed prior to commit:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16814?vs=46764&id=47432#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://rev
clayborg accepted this revision.
clayborg added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Looks good.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16814
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/li
tberghammer added a comment.
Jason: Can you take at the change in the unwinding logic?
Comment at: source/Plugins/Instruction/ARM/EmulateInstructionARM.cpp:13653
@@ -13656,2 +13652,3 @@
const uint32_t cond = CurrentCond (m_opcode.GetOpcode32());
-return cond != 0xe && c
tberghammer added inline comments.
Comment at: include/lldb/Core/EmulateInstruction.h:390
@@ +389,3 @@
+typedef uint32_t InstructionCondition;
+static const InstructionCondition UnconditionalCondition = UINT32_MAX;
+
clayborg wrote:
> It is nice to tell wh
clayborg requested changes to this revision.
clayborg added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Yes, it was probably too complex. My main objection was the use of the
UINT32_MAX as a magic number. Your UnconditionalCondition solution clears this
up.
Comme
labath added a comment.
I agree that we should not over-engineer things. I'll leave the decision up to
others...
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16814
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
tberghammer updated this revision to Diff 46764.
tberghammer added a comment.
Create a typedef for the condition type and a static const value for the
unconditional condition.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16814
Files:
include/lldb/Core/EmulateInstruction.h
include/lldb/Symbol/UnwindPlan.h
so
tberghammer added a comment.
UINT32_MAX is a kind of a random value what is most likely won't be used on any
architecture as a condition code (I can't imagine having so much different
condition flags) and my current intention is to map the unconditional value to
into it as it is already done on
clayborg added a comment.
I like that llvm::Optional idea!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16814
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
labath added a subscriber: labath.
Comment at: include/lldb/Core/EmulateInstruction.h:406-410
@@ -405,4 +405,7 @@
-virtual bool
-IsInstructionConditional() { return false; }
+// Returns a condition code in the for of uint32_t where UINT32_MAX means
that the instruct
clayborg requested changes to this revision.
clayborg added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
It would be nice to not pick UINT32_MAX for the unconditional condition and let
each emulator picks it desired values. See inlined comments. Let me know what
you think.
===
tberghammer created this revision.
tberghammer added reviewers: omjavaid, jasonmolenda, clayborg.
tberghammer added a subscriber: lldb-commits.
Herald added subscribers: danalbert, tberghammer, rengolin, aemerson.
Fix handling of the arm IT instruction in the unwinder
The IT instruction can speci
12 matches
Mail list logo
