Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D9404: Expression evaluation, a new ThreadPlanCallFunctionNoJIT for executing a function call on target via register manipulation

2015-07-14 Thread Ewan Crawford
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL242137: Expression evaluation, a new ThreadPlanCallFunctionUsingABI for executing a… (authored by EwanCrawford). Changed prior to commit: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9404?vs=29343id=29661#toc Repository:

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D9404: Expression evaluation, a new ThreadPlanCallFunctionNoJIT for executing a function call on target via register manipulation

2015-07-09 Thread Ewan Crawford
EwanCrawford updated this revision to Diff 29343. EwanCrawford added a comment. To address that final point of not doing any code execution at all for certain targets. I used the CanJIT() idea to create a similar CanInterpretFunctionCalls() member function of Process. This means that we can

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D9404: Expression evaluation, a new ThreadPlanCallFunctionNoJIT for executing a function call on target via register manipulation

2015-07-09 Thread Jim Ingham
jingham added a subscriber: jingham. jingham added a comment. For my part that looks great. Jim Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D9404 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@cs.uiuc.edu

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D9404: Expression evaluation, a new ThreadPlanCallFunctionNoJIT for executing a function call on target via register manipulation

2015-07-09 Thread Jim Ingham
For my part that looks great. Jim On Jul 9, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Ewan Crawford e...@codeplay.com wrote: EwanCrawford updated this revision to Diff 29343. EwanCrawford added a comment. To address that final point of not doing any code execution at all for certain targets. I used the

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D9404: Expression evaluation, a new ThreadPlanCallFunctionNoJIT for executing a function call on target via register manipulation

2015-07-02 Thread Ewan Crawford
EwanCrawford updated this revision to Diff 28959. EwanCrawford added a comment. Thanks for taking the time to have a closer look Jim. Could you expand on your last point about situations where we don't want to run the target at all, it didn't quite click. REPOSITORY rL LLVM