Actually, never mind, I am getting backtraces (Woot!!). Still not getting line numbers though.
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Keno Fischer <[email protected]>wrote: > 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
