BTW, I'm not sure if it helps you reproduce this issue at all, but I debugged into why it was failing to update, and it looks like a pointer value that doesn't map to any section. Obviously there's another bug causing that which I have yet to understand the cause of, but thought you might be curious.
On Thu Jan 08 2015 at 10:56:12 AM Enrico Granata <[email protected]> wrote: > On second thought, yes, that patch is a total think-o (right idea, wrong > fix).. > > It should probably just say > > if (success) > assert(what you said) > > Better patch incoming.. and I wonder if we can in any way force ourselves > into this scenario to test the sanity of any change in this area. Let me > think about that > > On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Zachary Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok so it looks like your patch doesn't fix the assert for me, but now > looking more closely at your patch, I wonder if it's correct. As per the > description, the purpose of your patch is to fix the case where success == > false (which is what's happening to me), but you are adding a requirement > to the assert that success be true. Shouldn't this be something like the > following: > > assert (!need_compare_checksums || (!old_checksum.empty() && > !m_value_checksum.empty())); > > > > On Wed Jan 07 2015 at 5:50:44 PM Zachary Turner <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> It just happens every time i run one of the tests on windows. It might be >> triggered because something earlier is broken, but I'll send you a stack >> trace or something tomorrow. Won't it be nice if/when we can debug windows >> core dumps from Mac? :P >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:21 PM Enrico Granata <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If you end up with a reproducible case of the assertion firing, totally >>> let me know - bugzilla or just an email >>> Hopefully it’s not so Windows-specific that I can’t get it to happen on >>> Mac >>> >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Zachary Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Cool, i think this assertion was actually firing on windows, making it >>> very annoying to run the test suite. I hope this fixes that >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:30 PM Enrico Granata <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Author: enrico >>>> Date: Wed Jan 7 18:29:12 2015 >>>> New Revision: 225418 >>>> >>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=225418&view=rev >>>> Log: >>>> Fix a problem where a ValueObject could fail to update itself, but >>>> since it was previously valid, we'd have an old checksum to compare aginst >>>> no new checksum (because failure to update), and assert() and die. Fix the >>>> problem by only caring about this assertion logic if updates succeed >>>> >>>> Modified: >>>> lldb/trunk/source/Core/ValueObject.cpp >>>> >>>> Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Core/ValueObject.cpp >>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/lldb/trunk/source/Core/ >>>> ValueObject.cpp?rev=225418&r1=225417&r2=225418&view=diff >>>> ============================================================ >>>> ================== >>>> --- lldb/trunk/source/Core/ValueObject.cpp (original) >>>> +++ lldb/trunk/source/Core/ValueObject.cpp Wed Jan 7 18:29:12 2015 >>>> @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ ValueObject::UpdateValueIfNeeded (bool u >>>> m_value_checksum.clear(); >>>> } >>>> >>>> - assert (old_checksum.empty() == !need_compare_checksums); >>>> + assert (success && (old_checksum.empty() == >>>> !need_compare_checksums)); >>>> >>>> if (first_update) >>>> SetValueDidChange (false); >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> lldb-commits mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> *- Enrico* >>> 📩 egranata@.com ☎️ 27683 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > Thanks, > *- Enrico* > 📩 egranata@.com ☎️ 27683 > > > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
