[lldb-dev] Trying to understand AppleObjCRuntimeV1::CreateObjectChecker

[Nat! via lldb-dev]

Hi

is this funny function  AppleObjCRuntimeV1::CreateObjectChecker actually 
used ?


First of all the snprintf is wrapped in an assert (!?). If the code gets 
compiled with -DNDEBUG, the function would pretty much do nothing.


Second, I guess, that this is some C-code that gets compiled on the fly, 
It seems to do nothing. I guess the code has a chance of crashing, if 
the parameter is not really an object. The debugger could notice that 
and figure out, that it's not an object. But guessing is not knowing... :)


Ciao
  Nat!


```
struct BufStruct {
char contents[2048];
};

UtilityFunction *
AppleObjCRuntimeV1::CreateObjectChecker(const char *name)
{
std::unique_ptr buf(new BufStruct);

assert(snprintf(&buf->contents[0], sizeof(buf->contents),
"struct __objc_class 
 \n"
"{ 
 \n"
"   struct __objc_class *isa; 
 \n"
"   struct __objc_class *super_class; 
 \n"
"   const char *name; 
 \n"
"   // rest of struct elided because unused 
 \n"
"}; 
 \n"
" 
 \n"
"struct __objc_object 
 \n"
"{ 
 \n"
"   struct __objc_class *isa; 
 \n"
"}; 
 \n"
" 
 \n"
"extern \"C\" void 
 \n"
"%s(void *$__lldb_arg_obj, void 
*$__lldb_arg_selector)  \n"
"{ 
 \n"
"   struct __objc_object *obj = (struct 
__objc_object*)$__lldb_arg_obj; \n"
"   (int)strlen(obj->isa->name); 
 \n"
"} 
 \n",

name) < (int)sizeof(buf->contents));

Error error;
return GetTargetRef().GetUtilityFunctionForLanguage(buf->contents, 
eLanguageTypeObjC, name, error);

}
```

___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

[Robinson, Paul via lldb-dev]

| It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities
Not looking for that.  Looking to avoid being trolled.  ("Trolled" isn't the 
right word here but I've lost track of what the right one is. Hopefully my 
intent is clear enough.)

| I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside these 
spaces may, in rare
cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the conduct 
amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social standard."

If that's what it means, is there a problem with writing it that way?

| But it's not, in practice, any different.
I concede it's not any different to a lawyer, which I know you are; most of us 
are not lawyers.  Again, if it's not any different, is there a problem with 
writing it in a way that provides clarity to the non-lawyer population?
Thanks,
--paulr

From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dber...@dberlin.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 3:11 PM
To: Robinson, Paul; Rafael Espíndola
Cc: LLDB; cfe-...@lists.llvm.org; llvm-dev; openmp-dev 
(openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM 
Code of Conduct

That's just a residual clause.
It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities here (IE if you 
stalk and murder someone in the llvm community, you are going to get kicked out 
of the community, regardless of if you did it in a controlled space)
I mean, i'm subject to legal ethics rules that are very similar, and those 
could get me kicked out of an entire profession :)

I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside these 
spaces may, in rare
cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the conduct 
amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social standard."

But it's not, in practice, any different.

Basically, if you are looking for complete and total bright line proscribed 
standards, they pretty much don't exist anywhere except in criminal statutes :)



On Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 2:45 PM Robinson, Paul 
mailto:paul.robin...@sony.com>> wrote:
I expect Rafael's concern is because the code also says:

In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare
cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them.

So it can apply outside spaces explicitly sponsored by LLVM, in undefined 
circumstances.
--paulr

From: cfe-dev 
[mailto:cfe-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] 
On Behalf Of Daniel Berlin via cfe-dev
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 1:37 PM
To: Rafael Espíndola
Cc: llvm-dev; cfe-dev; openmp-dev 
(openmp-...@lists.llvm.org); LLDB
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM 
Code of Conduct



On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola 
mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
I am strongly opposed to it as it stands.

Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of
conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in
channels not related to llvm at all.
errr, it says:
"This code of conduct applies to all spaces managed by the LLVM project or The
LLVM Foundation. This includes IRC channels, mailing lists, bug trackers, LLVM
vents such as the developer meetings and socials, and any other forums created
by the project that the community uses for communication. "


How does this cover channels not related to llvm?

With this in place I will not consider myself a member of the llvm
community anymore and would be terrified to interact with another llvm
developer in a social setting.

That would be sad, but i guess i'm not sure what is causing that. Is it that 
there is discretion in there that you are afraid may apply to you if taken to 
some extreme?

Rafael

On 30 June 2016 at 14:55, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev
mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looong) series of
> discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project as a
> whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741
> code review.
>
> The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the end
> there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now. It
> isn’t perfect, and there are still some important questions around forming
> the advisory committee to handle reporting, but I think the wording is at a
> good point of compromise in a challenging area.
>
> Based on the support, I’m going to land the patch that adds the draft. I’m
> hoping this will immediately provide good advice and guidance, and I’m
> hoping to see motion on setting up a reasonable advisory committee and
> resolving any issues around reporting so we can make this an official part
> of the community.
>
> I sending this as a heads up so folks are aware, not to start a new
> discussion thread. There are existing discussion threads[2] on llvm-dev if
> folks want to join in active discuss

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

[Daniel Berlin via lldb-dev]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Robinson, Paul 
wrote:

> | It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities
>
> Not looking for that.  Looking to avoid being trolled.  ("Trolled" isn't
> the right word here but I've lost track of what the right one is. Hopefully
> my intent is clear enough.)
>

I'm really not sure what you mean here.



>
>
> | I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside
> these spaces may, in rare
>
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the
> conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social
> standard."
>
>
>
> If that's what it means, is there a problem with writing it that way?
>

What do you believe that explains that the older version did not?
No matter how you write it, it will not precisely define the conduct that
will or will not get you kicked out.



>
>
> | But it's not, in practice, any different.
>
> I concede it's not any different to a lawyer, which I know you are; most
> of us are not lawyers.
>

That's not really relevant of course - i meant that it's not any different
in practice than any other set of social conduct rules one is subject to.

I doubt, for example, either the Google or Sony employee handbooks have
precise bright lines on what conduct is okay and not okay.   Yet they still
have serious consequences.


> Again, if it's not any different, is there a problem with writing it in a
> way that provides clarity to the non-lawyer population?
>

I don't think any way you write it will provide clarity as to precisely
what conduct will and will not be okay.

Anyway, since I don't think what you seem to want is possible, and I think
it's fine as-is.
But I understand if you disagree.
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

[Tom Honermann via lldb-dev]

On 6/30/2016 5:20 PM, Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev wrote:
> We were using tags for a while in our own SVN->git conversion internally.
> (git branch is pushed to SVN and the SVN r-number used to create a tag.)
> They are convenient for some things, but each tag adds a new (if small)
> file to .git/tags and I don't know that it really scales well when you
> are talking about (long term) hundreds of thousands of them.  That was
> not what tags were designed for.

We're using tags in this manner for our internal repos and LLVM/Clang 
mirrors and haven't experienced any problems.  We're at ~50k tags for 
our most used repo, so not quite at hundreds of thousands yet.

When I look in .git/refs/tags of one of my repos, I do *not* see 50k 
files; I see ~400.  I'm not sure what causes some to appear here and 
others not.

I don't see how this use of tags is not representative of what tags were 
designed for.  They are designed to label a commit.  That seems to match 
well what is desired here.

> We've since stopped creating the tags, and gotten used to not having
> them.  We do the 'rev-list --count' trick which mainly gets recorded as
> one component of the version number, and it has been working for us.

As I understand it, 'git rev-list --count HEAD' requires walking the 
entire commit history.  Perhaps the performance is actually ok in 
practice, but I would be concerned about scaling with this approach as well:

$ time git rev-list --count HEAD
115968

real0m1.170s
user0m1.100s
sys 0m0.064s

> I think having the number in the commit log (even if it's just for the
> superproject) would be preferable.  You can use 'git log --grep' to
> find a particular rev if you need to.

Grepping every commit doesn't seem like the most scalable option either. 
  I did a quick test on a large repo.  First a grep for an identifier:

$ time git log --grep 
...
real0m1.450s
user0m1.340s
sys 0m0.092s

Then I did the same for the associated push tag:

$ time git log -n 1 
...
real0m0.048s
user0m0.024s
sys 0m0.016s

Tom.
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

[Tom Honermann via lldb-dev]

On 6/30/2016 6:18 PM, Jim Rowan via cfe-dev wrote:
>
> On Jun 30, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev
> mailto:llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
> (talking about lots of tags)
>
>> I don't know that it really scales well when you
>> are talking about (long term) hundreds of thousands of them.
>
> I can say from experience that it does not scale well.After some
> time, everyone would start feeling the pain.

Can you elaborate on this?  As I mentioned in another email, we're at 
~50k tags in one repo and not having any problems.  I can't see why git 
would fundamentally have scaling or performance issues in conjunction 
with lots of tags.  Perhaps some UI interfaces were failing to scale well?

Tom.

___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

[Tim Northover via lldb-dev]

On 1 July 2016 at 08:18, Tom Honermann via lldb-dev
 wrote:
> On 6/30/2016 5:20 PM, Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev wrote:
> We're using tags in this manner for our internal repos and LLVM/Clang
> mirrors and haven't experienced any problems.  We're at ~50k tags for
> our most used repo, so not quite at hundreds of thousands yet.

My issue with using tags like this is that they pollute the tag
namespace and will quickly swamp what I consider to be the important
ones ("release-X"). OK, so we've got "git tag -l 'release*'" but
that's pretty ugly.

Tim.
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

[Robinson, Paul via lldb-dev]

I'm not sure why you're stuck on thinking I want an enumeration of offenses.
What I'm looking for (and AFAICT also Rafael and maybe other people) is a 
clearer statement that "offenses" outside of LLVM-defined spaces need to meet a 
much higher bar to be considered problematic within the LLVM community.  
Someone tripping over my posting on the Militant Flat Earth Society should not 
get a free pass to boot me out of LLVM.
The single word "rare" in the current code doesn't feel like enough.
--paulr

From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dber...@dberlin.org]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 7:46 AM
To: Robinson, Paul
Cc: Rafael Espíndola; LLDB; cfe-...@lists.llvm.org; llvm-dev; openmp-dev 
(openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM 
Code of Conduct



On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Robinson, Paul 
mailto:paul.robin...@sony.com>> wrote:
| It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities
Not looking for that.  Looking to avoid being trolled.  ("Trolled" isn't the 
right word here but I've lost track of what the right one is. Hopefully my 
intent is clear enough.)

I'm really not sure what you mean here.



| I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside these 
spaces may, in rare
cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the conduct 
amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social standard."

If that's what it means, is there a problem with writing it that way?

What do you believe that explains that the older version did not?
No matter how you write it, it will not precisely define the conduct that will 
or will not get you kicked out.



| But it's not, in practice, any different.
I concede it's not any different to a lawyer, which I know you are; most of us 
are not lawyers.

That's not really relevant of course - i meant that it's not any different in 
practice than any other set of social conduct rules one is subject to.

I doubt, for example, either the Google or Sony employee handbooks have precise 
bright lines on what conduct is okay and not okay.   Yet they still have 
serious consequences.

Again, if it's not any different, is there a problem with writing it in a way 
that provides clarity to the non-lawyer population?

I don't think any way you write it will provide clarity as to precisely what 
conduct will and will not be okay.

Anyway, since I don't think what you seem to want is possible, and I think it's 
fine as-is.
But I understand if you disagree.


___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] Trying to understand AppleObjCRuntimeV1::CreateObjectChecker

[Jim Ingham via lldb-dev]

Your guess about the use of the checkers is right.  The code you are looking at 
compiles and inserts this function in the target, then when compiling future 
expressions, if we detect a reference to an ObjC object, we insert a call to 
the checker into the JIT'ed code before accessing the object.  That way, if 
your expression references an invalid object, we'll crash here and be able to 
report that the object was bad, rather than leaving you to have to figure out 
from some crash later on in your expression that this was the cause.

We did this because it is pretty common for IDE's to operate on ALL the locals 
in a frame, and it is quite common that some of them are not yet initialized.  
So detecting this condition is helpful.

I think the way the assert is done in this case is just a bug.  The 
AppleRuntimeV2 checker does the snprintf, then does:

assert (len < (int)sizeof(check_function_code));

That's just to catch the case where somebody working on lldb decides to change 
the name of the checker function to something enormous that overflows the 
buffer, or adds code to the checker w/o making sure to enlarge the buffer.  
Both of those would be programmer errors, so an assert that goes away with 
-DNDEBUG is appropriate.

Jim


> On Jul 1, 2016, at 2:38 AM, Nat! via lldb-dev  wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> is this funny function  AppleObjCRuntimeV1::CreateObjectChecker actually used 
> ?
> 
> First of all the snprintf is wrapped in an assert (!?). If the code gets 
> compiled with -DNDEBUG, the function would pretty much do nothing.
> 
> Second, I guess, that this is some C-code that gets compiled on the fly, It 
> seems to do nothing. I guess the code has a chance of crashing, if the 
> parameter is not really an object. The debugger could notice that and figure 
> out, that it's not an object. But guessing is not knowing... :)
> 
> Ciao
>  Nat!
> 
> 
> ```
> struct BufStruct {
>char contents[2048];
> };
> 
> UtilityFunction *
> AppleObjCRuntimeV1::CreateObjectChecker(const char *name)
> {
>std::unique_ptr buf(new BufStruct);
> 
>assert(snprintf(&buf->contents[0], sizeof(buf->contents),
>"struct __objc_class  \n"
>"{  \n"
>"   struct __objc_class *isa;  \n"
>"   struct __objc_class *super_class;  
> \n"
>"   const char *name;  \n"
>"   // rest of struct elided because unused
>   \n"
>"};  \n"
>"  \n"
>"struct __objc_object  \n"
>"{  \n"
>"   struct __objc_class *isa;  \n"
>"};  \n"
>"  \n"
>"extern \"C\" void  \n"
>"%s(void *$__lldb_arg_obj, void *$__lldb_arg_selector) 
>  \n"
>"{  \n"
>"   struct __objc_object *obj = (struct 
> __objc_object*)$__lldb_arg_obj; \n"
>"   (int)strlen(obj->isa->name);  \n"
>"}  \n",
>name) < (int)sizeof(buf->contents));
> 
>Error error;
>return GetTargetRef().GetUtilityFunctionForLanguage(buf->contents, 
> eLanguageTypeObjC, name, error);
> }
> ```
> 
> ___
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

[Daniel Berlin via lldb-dev]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Robinson, Paul 
wrote:

> I'm not sure why you're stuck on thinking I want an enumeration of
> offenses.
>
Sorry, it's because  i don't see a way to give you the below without it :)

> What I'm looking for (and AFAICT also Rafael and maybe other people) is a
> clearer statement that "offenses" outside of LLVM-defined spaces need to
> meet a much higher bar to be considered problematic within the LLVM
> community.
>

How would you define that bar without defining the offenses?
IE what do you think would make it less subject to vague discretion than
what is there now other than defining the offenses?


> Someone tripping over my posting on the Militant Flat Earth Society should
> not get a free pass to boot me out of LLVM.
>
The single word "rare" in the current code doesn't feel like enough.
>

I don't actually disagree with your criticism, IMHO, i just don't know of a
way to generate more clarity.

--paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* Daniel Berlin [mailto:dber...@dberlin.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 01, 2016 7:46 AM
> *To:* Robinson, Paul
> *Cc:* Rafael Espíndola; LLDB; cfe-...@lists.llvm.org; llvm-dev;
> openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)
> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an
> LLVM Code of Conduct
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Robinson, Paul 
> wrote:
>
> | It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities
>
> Not looking for that.  Looking to avoid being trolled.  ("Trolled" isn't
> the right word here but I've lost track of what the right one is. Hopefully
> my intent is clear enough.)
>
>
>
> I'm really not sure what you mean here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> | I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside
> these spaces may, in rare
>
> cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the
> conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social
> standard."
>
>
>
> If that's what it means, is there a problem with writing it that way?
>
>
>
> What do you believe that explains that the older version did not?
>
> No matter how you write it, it will not precisely define the conduct that
> will or will not get you kicked out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> | But it's not, in practice, any different.
>
> I concede it's not any different to a lawyer, which I know you are; most
> of us are not lawyers.
>
>
> That's not really relevant of course - i meant that it's not any different
> in practice than any other set of social conduct rules one is subject to.
>
>
> I doubt, for example, either the Google or Sony employee handbooks have
> precise bright lines on what conduct is okay and not okay.   Yet they still
> have serious consequences.
>
>
>
> Again, if it's not any different, is there a problem with writing it in a
> way that provides clarity to the non-lawyer population?
>
>
>
> I don't think any way you write it will provide clarity as to precisely
> what conduct will and will not be okay.
>
>
>
> Anyway, since I don't think what you seem to want is possible, and I think
> it's fine as-is.
>
> But I understand if you disagree.
>
>
>
>
>
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

[Robinson, Paul via lldb-dev]

| I don't actually disagree with your criticism, IMHO, i just don't know of a 
way to generate more clarity.

Well that's something anyway.  Thanks.
--paulr

From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dber...@dberlin.org]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 10:32 AM
To: Robinson, Paul
Cc: Rafael Espíndola; LLDB; cfe-...@lists.llvm.org; llvm-dev; openmp-dev 
(openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM 
Code of Conduct



On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Robinson, Paul 
mailto:paul.robin...@sony.com>> wrote:
I'm not sure why you're stuck on thinking I want an enumeration of offenses.
Sorry, it's because  i don't see a way to give you the below without it :)
What I'm looking for (and AFAICT also Rafael and maybe other people) is a 
clearer statement that "offenses" outside of LLVM-defined spaces need to meet a 
much higher bar to be considered problematic within the LLVM community.

How would you define that bar without defining the offenses?
IE what do you think would make it less subject to vague discretion than what 
is there now other than defining the offenses?

Someone tripping over my posting on the Militant Flat Earth Society should not 
get a free pass to boot me out of LLVM.
The single word "rare" in the current code doesn't feel like enough.

I don't actually disagree with your criticism, IMHO, i just don't know of a way 
to generate more clarity.

--paulr

From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dber...@dberlin.org]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 7:46 AM
To: Robinson, Paul
Cc: Rafael Espíndola; LLDB; 
cfe-...@lists.llvm.org; llvm-dev; openmp-dev 
(openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM 
Code of Conduct



On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Robinson, Paul 
mailto:paul.robin...@sony.com>> wrote:
| It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities
Not looking for that.  Looking to avoid being trolled.  ("Trolled" isn't the 
right word here but I've lost track of what the right one is. Hopefully my 
intent is clear enough.)

I'm really not sure what you mean here.



| I guess one could write "In addition, violations of this code outside these 
spaces may, in rare
cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when the conduct 
amounts to an egregious violation of the communitie's social standard."

If that's what it means, is there a problem with writing it that way?

What do you believe that explains that the older version did not?
No matter how you write it, it will not precisely define the conduct that will 
or will not get you kicked out.



| But it's not, in practice, any different.
I concede it's not any different to a lawyer, which I know you are; most of us 
are not lawyers.

That's not really relevant of course - i meant that it's not any different in 
practice than any other set of social conduct rules one is subject to.

I doubt, for example, either the Google or Sony employee handbooks have precise 
bright lines on what conduct is okay and not okay.   Yet they still have 
serious consequences.

Again, if it's not any different, is there a problem with writing it in a way 
that provides clarity to the non-lawyer population?

I don't think any way you write it will provide clarity as to precisely what 
conduct will and will not be okay.

Anyway, since I don't think what you seem to want is possible, and I think it's 
fine as-is.
But I understand if you disagree.



___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

[lldb-dev] Can someone help me getting the thread local variable tests on Linux passing after my changes in 274366?

[Greg Clayton via lldb-dev]

I don't have access to a linux machine that can currently build LLVM, Clang and 
LLDB (all are machines that are administered by others and the cmake is too old 
to build top of tree). It should be trivial to get working if you can debug it.

Greg Clayton
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] Can someone help me getting the thread local variable tests on Linux passing after my changes in 274366?

[Greg Clayton via lldb-dev]

So it turns out that TLS variables on linux have been broken all along. I 
backed out my changes and the test still failed. The test had a decorator:

 @unittest2.expectedFailure("rdar://7796742")

That was causing it to expected fail for everyone. I fixed 7796742 and took off 
the decorator, but then the buildbots had errors. I added back a decorator:

 @unittest2.expectedFailure("now works on Darwin, but not linux")

As I am not aware of a "expectedFailureExceptDarwin" decorator. Someone on 
linux should have a look when they get the chance.

Greg Clayton

> On Jul 1, 2016, at 12:40 PM, Greg Clayton via lldb-dev 
>  wrote:
> 
> I don't have access to a linux machine that can currently build LLVM, Clang 
> and LLDB (all are machines that are administered by others and the cmake is 
> too old to build top of tree). It should be trivial to get working if you can 
> debug it.
> 
> Greg Clayton
> ___
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

[Renato Golin via lldb-dev]

On 1 July 2016 at 18:32, Daniel Berlin via lldb-dev
 wrote:
>> The single word "rare" in the current code doesn't feel like enough.
>
> I don't actually disagree with your criticism, IMHO, i just don't know of a
> way to generate more clarity.

Paul, Rafael, Daniel,

With the intention of being pragmatic and getting the draft out
(remember, it's *still* a draft), would having Daniel's new proposal
more comfortable?

"In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in
rare cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them, when
the conduct amounts to an egregious violation of the community's
social standard."

If so, than I'd hope we could get this through and start discussing
the second part, the reporting and committee formation, which I think
it's much more important than the code itself.

cheers,
--renato
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

[Renato Golin via lldb-dev]

On 1 July 2016 at 17:32, Tim Northover  wrote:
> My issue with using tags like this is that they pollute the tag
> namespace and will quickly swamp what I consider to be the important
> ones ("release-X"). OK, so we've got "git tag -l 'release*'" but
> that's pretty ugly.

What if we had a mixed mode?

Say we create a tag for each release, and we know what was the last
release's tag number (245234), then we just need to count how many
commits "since the last tag", which will always be the last release.

This will have all the tags we want, and scale forever.

Is rev-list able to do that?

--renato
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

[lldb-dev] [Bug 28392] New: Thread local variables are not working on Linux

[via lldb-dev]

https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28392

Bug ID: 28392
   Summary: Thread local variables are not working on Linux
   Product: lldb
   Version: unspecified
  Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P
 Component: All Bugs
  Assignee: lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
  Reporter: clayb...@gmail.com
CC: llvm-b...@lists.llvm.org
Classification: Unclassified

The "packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lang/c/tls_globals" test is broken on
Linux. It seemed to be ok only because before TLS support was added to Darwin,
it was being expected failed by the following decorator:

 @unittest2.expectedFailure("rdar://7796742")

once I fixed Darwin, the buildbots started to fail on linux. Not sure which
other OS variants will be failing as well, so I added back a:

 @unittest2.expectedFailure("now works on Darwin, but not linux")

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev