I'm currently in holiday mode as well. A couple of things that I didn't get to that need to be resolved (these are pretty general questions on lldb itself, so I'd appreciate input from anybody on this list):
- I'm using a regular rather than an internal breakpoint, because the latter does not get updated when shared libraries are loaded (Is this intended? Is there a recommended workaround?) - I'm not seeing the function in backtraces even though I can set breakpoints. Is there anything else that needs to be done/ Do the backtraces use different information that is perhaps not relocated properly? If so, how can I check? - I'm also not seeing line numbers, etc. Probably related to the second point. - Keno On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Andrew MacPherson <[email protected]>wrote: > This looks great. I'm still in holiday mode but will tackle any > outstanding ELF-related work when I'm back on Thursday, feel free to ping > me or the list again if you get any further. Thanks for pushing on this! > > Cheers, > Andrew > > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Keno Fischer < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I've gotten pretty far, >> Code is here: https://github.com/loladiro/lldb >> It's interacting correctly with the debug interface and I've got it >> loading the object file from memory correctly for >> MachO/DWARF (working on ELF right now). Currently not much use as it >> doesn't seem to be looking at the >> debug information that were just added (I can see them via `image dump >> sections` and I can set breakpoints >> correctly though, so that's a plus). For DWARF, there's a few changes for >> upstream LLVM needed. I'll put them >> up if anybody's interested, otherwise, I'll just keep chugging along and >> wait until I have more complete patch. >> >> - Keno >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Andrew MacPherson <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi Keno, >>> >>> I noticed the same thing and agree that the JIT loader doesn't perfectly >>> fit as a DynamicLoader, the suggestion from a couple of years back on the >>> list was to make the Process -> DynamicLoader relationship 1:n but I prefer >>> your suggestion of adding a new plugin type (JITLoader). Right now there >>> would only be one JITLoader type for the GDB interface. >>> >>> The patch could probably be fixed up as-is as a first step (leaving the >>> JIT loading bits as a growth on the DynamicLoaderPOSIXDYLD) and we could >>> move it out into its own plugin type once that's working. I should have >>> time this coming week to get this working but if you'll also have time then >>> I'm happy to leave it with you. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Andrew >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Keno Fischer < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I've started looking into this and it's actually not that difficult to >>>> do (the JIT part at least). I think the most difficult thing is >>>> figuring out where to put the functionality. The way I see it, the JIT >>>> interface is almost a DynamicLoader, with the difference >>>> that asking it about things like whether or not loading a dynamic >>>> library is safe doesn't make much sense. Another problem >>>> is that currently there's a 1:1 relationship between Processes and >>>> DynamicLoaders. Perhaps a new class of Plugins >>>> (JITLoader?) could be added with a 1:n relationship to processes. Some >>>> of the interface (I'm thinking >>>> DidLaunch,DidAttach,Get/SetStopWhenImagesChange) could be pulled out >>>> into an abstract base class. Does that make >>>> sense. I'd be happy to implement this once we decide on the design. >>>> >>>> Keno >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Andrew MacPherson < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Looks great, thanks Keno. I'll look into this next week and keep you >>>>> posted. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Andrew >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Keno Fischer < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I have this (as I said, I haven't tried it). It seems to be a >>>>>> different patch. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Andrew MacPherson < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Keno, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I found this old patch that hooks into the GDB JIT registration >>>>>>> mechanism which we were planning to use as a starting point: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/lldb-dev/2010-December/000314.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you have anything else we'd love to take a look! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Andrew >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Keno Fischer < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Andrew, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm also one of the Julia core developers and the guy currently >>>>>>>> working on >>>>>>>> debugging support. I was given a patch to add MCJIT debugging >>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>> to LLDB with the disclaimer that it probably doesn't work. I >>>>>>>> haven't tried it >>>>>>>> yet, so I can't say how close it is, but it's probably at least a >>>>>>>> starting point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd be happy to coordinate any efforts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Keno >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> lldb-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
