[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39733: Simplify NativeProcessProtocol::GetArchitecture/GetByteOrder

clayborg added a comment. If it isn't expensive to copy, then we should probably just return by value. https://reviews.llvm.org/D39733 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39733: Simplify NativeProcessProtocol::GetArchitecture/GetByteOrder

eugene added inline comments. Comment at: include/lldb/Host/common/NativeProcessProtocol.h:104 - virtual bool GetArchitecture(ArchSpec ) const = 0; + virtual const ArchSpec () const = 0; labath wrote: > eugene wrote: > > Why return reference instead of a

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39733: Simplify NativeProcessProtocol::GetArchitecture/GetByteOrder

clayborg requested changes to this revision. clayborg added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed. Looks fine. Seems like you should use your a const reference in a few places and this will be good to go? Comment at:

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39602: Update tuple/list/deque data formatters to work with newest libc++

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL317624: Update tuple/list/deque data formatters to work with newest libc++ (authored by labath). Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D39602 Files: lldb/trunk/examples/synthetic/libcxx.py

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r317624 - Update tuple/list/deque data formatters to work with newest libc++

Author: labath Date: Tue Nov 7 14:17:29 2017 New Revision: 317624 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=317624=rev Log: Update tuple/list/deque data formatters to work with newest libc++ Summary: A couple of members of these data structures have been renamed in recent months. This makes

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39733: Simplify NativeProcessProtocol::GetArchitecture/GetByteOrder

krytarowski added a comment. The NetBSD part looks good. https://reviews.llvm.org/D39733 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39733: Simplify NativeProcessProtocol::GetArchitecture/GetByteOrder

labath added inline comments. Comment at: include/lldb/Host/common/NativeProcessProtocol.h:104 - virtual bool GetArchitecture(ArchSpec ) const = 0; + virtual const ArchSpec () const = 0; eugene wrote: > Why return reference instead of a value? I'd actually

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39733: Simplify NativeProcessProtocol::GetArchitecture/GetByteOrder

eugene added inline comments. Comment at: include/lldb/Host/common/NativeProcessProtocol.h:104 - virtual bool GetArchitecture(ArchSpec ) const = 0; + virtual const ArchSpec () const = 0; Why return reference instead of a value?

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39602: Update tuple/list/deque data formatters to work with newest libc++

jingham accepted this revision. jingham added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. This looks fine. Some day it would be nice to devise some markup in the STL that could be used to generate these formatters so we don't have to track them by hand, but that's a much longer

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39733: Simplify NativeProcessProtocol::GetArchitecture/GetByteOrder

labath created this revision. Herald added a subscriber: javed.absar. These functions used to return bool to signify whether they were able to retrieve the data. This is redundant because the ArchSpec and ByteOrder already have their own "invalid" states, *and* because both of the current

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39727: Make TestTopLevelExprs more robust in face of linker GC

Fair enough, originally I thought this was the “traditional” kind of GC, which would have made this approach simpler On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:23 AM Pavel Labath wrote: > On 7 November 2017 at 13:51, Pavel Labath wrote: > > On 7 November 2017 at 13:29,

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39727: Make TestTopLevelExprs more robust in face of linker GC

On 7 November 2017 at 13:51, Pavel Labath wrote: > On 7 November 2017 at 13:29, Zachary Turner wrote: >> If it works, is easy, and doesn’t regress anything I’d honestly rather just >> disable linker gc. > Ok, I'll try that. I'm starting not to to like this.

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39727: Make TestTopLevelExprs more robust in face of linker GC

On 7 November 2017 at 13:29, Zachary Turner wrote: > If it works, is easy, and doesn’t regress anything I’d honestly rather just > disable linker gc. Ok, I'll try that. > > But I’m not familiar with the method you mentioned. I thought linker gc > happens when you have

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r317574 - Fix an issue in r317563 causing a clang assert

Author: tberghammer Date: Tue Nov 7 05:43:55 2017 New Revision: 317574 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=317574=rev Log: Fix an issue in r317563 causing a clang assert Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Symbol/ClangASTContext.cpp Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Symbol/ClangASTContext.cpp

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39727: Make TestTopLevelExprs more robust in face of linker GC

If it works, is easy, and doesn’t regress anything I’d honestly rather just disable linker gc. But I’m not familiar with the method you mentioned. I thought linker gc happens when you have -function-sections, -fdata-sections, and —gc-sections. Wouldn’t it work to just not have those? Or is

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39727: Make TestTopLevelExprs more robust in face of linker GC

On 7 November 2017 at 12:46, Zachary Turner wrote: > I just wonder if we should be disabling linker gc across the board for all > tests unless you explicitly opt in. > > Seems like something we would want only rarely, if ever Yes, that might be an option. I don't really have

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39727: Make TestTopLevelExprs more robust in face of linker GC

I just wonder if we should be disabling linker gc across the board for all tests unless you explicitly opt in. Seems like something we would want only rarely, if ever On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:36 AM Pavel Labath wrote: > I could, but I thought this would be more portable. For

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39727: Make TestTopLevelExprs more robust in face of linker GC

I could, but I thought this would be more portable. For the Makefile solution I'd need to do something like LD_EXTRAS := -Wl,--no-as-needed,--whole-archive Which is a bit of a hack, as I'm not even using these flags to affect my own libraries, but the libraries that the compiler adds

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39727: Make TestTopLevelExprs more robust in face of linker GC

Can’t you just disable linker gc in the makefile? On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:18 AM Pavel Labath via Phabricator via lldb-commits wrote: > labath created this revision. > Herald added a subscriber: srhines. > > This test was failing in various configurations on linux in

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39727: Make TestTopLevelExprs more robust in face of linker GC

labath created this revision. Herald added a subscriber: srhines. This test was failing in various configurations on linux in a fairly unpredictible way. The success depended on whether the c++ abi library was linked in statically or not and how well was the linker able to strip parts of it. This

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39545: Support scoped enums in the DWARF AST parser

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL317563: Support scoped enums in the DWARF AST parser (authored by tberghammer). Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D39545 Files: lldb/trunk/include/lldb/Symbol/ClangASTContext.h

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r317563 - Support scoped enums in the DWARF AST parser

Author: tberghammer Date: Tue Nov 7 02:39:22 2017 New Revision: 317563 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=317563=rev Log: Support scoped enums in the DWARF AST parser Subscribers: JDevlieghere Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39545 Modified:

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r317561 - "Fix" concurrent events test for arm

Author: labath Date: Tue Nov 7 02:36:36 2017 New Revision: 317561 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=317561=rev Log: "Fix" concurrent events test for arm Summary: The test incremented an atomic varible to trigger the watchpoint event. On arm64 this compiled to a ldaxr/stlxr loop, with

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39680: "Fix" concurrent events test for arm

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL317561: "Fix" concurrent events test for arm (authored by labath). Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D39680 Files: lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/decorators.py