The clang fix has been reverted for now, so the buildbots should all be happy
again. Let me know if they aren't.
> On Nov 7, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Greg Clayton <gclay...@apple.com> wrote:
>
> The clang commit r221404 broke this. We are working on a fix with the author.
>
>> On Nov 6, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have no idea if this is related, but I made r221378 in LLDB yesterday to
>> fix a build breakage as a result of an upstream LLVM change. I'm not sure
>> what LLVM change introduced the break. At first your r221471 sounded like
>> it might be relevant, but that comes after my change, so it couldn't have
>> been that.
>>
>> Either way, maybe a red herring, just rang a bell when you mentioned dynamic
>> type of metadata.
>>
>> On Thu Nov 06 2014 at 3:05:23 PM Sean Callanan <scalla...@apple.com> wrote:
>> After some local reverting, it turns out that no, it didn’t. Curses!
>>
>> Sean
>>
>>> On Nov 6, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Sean Callanan <scalla...@apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Greg,
>>>
>>> LLVM r221471 broke this. Somebody made bad assumptions about what the
>>> dynamic type of a piece of metadata might be.
>>>
>>> Sean
>>>
>>>> On Nov 6, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Greg Clayton <gclay...@apple.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We think this is due to a clang change. We will be tracking this down
>>>> shortly.
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 6, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Greg Clayton <gclay...@apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The expression parser is failing for printf:
>>>>>
>>>>> (lldb) expr (int)printf("hello\n")
>>>>> error: call to a function 'printf(char const*, ...)' ('_Z6printfPKcz')
>>>>> that is not present in the target
>>>>> error: warning: function 'printf' has internal linkage but is not defined
>>>>> note: used here
>>>>> error: The expression could not be prepared to run in the target
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems to be the bug we need to track down. We will take care of that
>>>>> here at Apple.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Vince Harron <vhar...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I'm reading this correctly, it looks like Change #69502 caused some
>>>>>> unit test failures in Linux.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-freebsd/builds/2513
>>>>>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-freebsd/builds/2512
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vince
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vince Harron | Technical Lead Manager | vhar...@google.com |
>>>>>> 858-442-0868
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> lldb-dev mailing list
>>>>>> lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> lldb-dev mailing list
>>>>> lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> lldb-dev mailing list
>>>> lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lldb-dev mailing list
>> lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
