majnemer added inline comments.
Comment at: lldb/trunk/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/PDB/PDBASTParser.cpp:162-163
+return ConstString("HRESULT");
+ case PDB_BuiltinType::BCD:
+return ConstString("HRESULT");
+ case PDB_BuiltinType::None:
Copy paste bug?
Re
mgorny added a comment.
Disclaimer: I have never seen a plugin for LLDB. I've just noticed the wrong
path in `strace` output and fixed it ;-).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42317
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.ll
mgorny created this revision.
mgorny added reviewers: k8stone, zturner, beanz.
Fix the Linux plugin lookup path to include appropriate libdir suffix
for the system. To accomplish this, store the value of
LLVM_LIBDIR_SUFFIX in lldb/Host/Config.h as LLDB_LIBDIR_SUFFIX,
and use this variable when def
This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state "Needs
Review".
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL322995: [SymbolFilePDB] Fix null array access when parsing
the type of a function… (authored by asmith, committed by ).
C
asmith accepted this revision.
asmith added a comment.
Revision was approved by zturner in the comments
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41427
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/ma
vsk updated this revision to Diff 130686.
vsk added a comment.
Per an offline comment by Adrian, include -gmodules in the mandatory set of
module flags.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42277
Files:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lang/objc/modules-auto-import/Makefile
packages/Python/lldbsuite/t
zturner accepted this revision.
zturner added a comment.
Sorry for forgetting about this! lgtm
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41427
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/li
aprantl added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42280#982229, @jingham wrote:
> I didn't intend to block this patch, just to point out that this was really
> work you shouldn't have had to do, and that as we touch these files we should
> clean them up so next time we don't have to. It wi
jingham accepted this revision.
jingham added a comment.
I didn't intend to block this patch, just to point out that this was really
work you shouldn't have had to do, and that as we touch these files we should
clean them up so next time we don't have to. It will also make the test files
easie
clayborg accepted this revision.
clayborg added a comment.
Nice!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42280
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
davide accepted this revision.
davide added a comment.
lgtm
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42280
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Awesome. This will make flipping the out-of-tree switch much easier.
Making more tests use lldbutil.run_to_source_breakpoint would be nice, but I
suspect that cannot be done with a shellscript
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42280#982190, @jingham wrote:
> We have a lot of ugly boilerplate in the testsuite. I added:
>
> (target, process, thread, bkpt) = lldbutil.run_to_source_breakpoint(self,
> "Set a breakpoint here", self.main_source_
jingham added a comment.
We have a lot of ugly boilerplate in the testsuite. I added:
(target, process, thread, bkpt) = lldbutil.run_to_source_breakpoint(self,
"Set a breakpoint here", self.main_source_file)
Because that's what a lot of tests did. I converted a h
owenpshaw updated this revision to Diff 130643.
owenpshaw added a comment.
Herald added a subscriber: mgorny.
- Updated to use TestBase.process() instead of a new member
- Added yaml2obj dependency. It it okay to be an unconditional dependency?
- I can put the socket close() back in, but had remo
> On Jan 19, 2018, at 9:04 AM, Adrian Prantl via Phabricator
> wrote:
>
> aprantl added a comment.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42281#981969, @clayborg wrote:
>
>> Looks like a good start. It might be nice to validate that after "clean"
>> that we have no files that are untracked in the
alexandreyy added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#981651, @alexandreyy wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#980893, @davide wrote:
>
> > Wait a minute. Is there any reason why we can't add tests now?
>
>
> Thanks.
> We are running the default tests of the lldb suite.
> Curr
davide requested changes to this revision.
davide added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
This looks like a decent way of going forward, I'm a little concerned about
swallowing an error, see comment inline.
Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dot
davide added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42281#981973, @aprantl wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42281#981969, @clayborg wrote:
>
> > Looks like a good start. It might be nice to validate that after "clean"
> > that we have no files that are untracked in the test directory? This
aprantl added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42281#981969, @clayborg wrote:
> Looks like a good start. It might be nice to validate that after "clean" that
> we have no files that are untracked in the test directory? This could help us
> to verify that we don't leave artifacts around.
clayborg added a comment.
Looks like a good start. It might be nice to validate that after "clean" that
we have no files that are untracked in the test directory? This could help us
to verify that we don't leave artifacts around.
Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dot
davide accepted this revision.
davide added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
lgtm, feel free to go ahead.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-
alexandreyy added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#980893, @davide wrote:
> Wait a minute. Is there any reason why we can't add tests now?
Thanks.
We are running the default tests of the lldb suite.
Currently, we have 48 failures that we are working on.
Could we proceed with this p
alexandreyy added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#981456, @labath wrote:
> Well.. whether this plugin is tested depends on what machine you're running
> on. If you're running on a ppc machine, plenty of tests will exercise this
> code (TestReturnValue, and pretty much any test doi
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL322935: Remove Platform references from the Host module
(authored by labath, committed by ).
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits.
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41902?vs=129435&i
Author: labath
Date: Fri Jan 19 03:10:54 2018
New Revision: 322935
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=322935&view=rev
Log:
Remove Platform references from the Host module
Summary:
These were used by Host::LaunchProcess to "resolve" the executable it
was about to launch. The only parts o
On 11 January 2018 at 22:42, Davide Italiano wrote:
> The test Jim committed broke the public bots, so I went ahead and reverted it.
>
>
> Committing to https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/lldb/trunk ...
> commit 87eb2de0885d646e71d5848c1fa699b784bf5d2b
> Author: Davide Italiano
> Date: Thu Jan 1
labath added a comment.
I don't know much about clang modules, but the change seems reasonable to me.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42277
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commi
labath added a comment.
Oh, and please add yaml2obj as a dependency of the check-lldb target in cmake.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42195
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-comm
labath added a comment.
Thank you for making the changes. The parsing code looks much cleaner now. I
just have one more round of tiny remarks.
Comment at:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/gdb_remote_client/gdbclientutils.py:241
+self.port = self._socket.
labath added a comment.
I like the direction this is going in. When looking at this, it occurred to me
some of our tests do recursive make invocations, generally to build shared
libraries (TestConflictingSymbol is a good example). The $(MAKE) line in those
may need to be fixed somehow.
=
labath added a comment.
Well.. whether this plugin is tested depends on what machine you're running on.
If you're running on a ppc machine, plenty of tests will exercise this code
(TestReturnValue, and pretty much any test doing expression evaluation).
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am assumin
vsk added inline comments.
Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/make/Makefile.rules:240
+CLANG_MODULE_CACHE_DIR := module-cache
+
aprantl wrote:
> Is it safe that this is a relative path?
I admit it's not great, but it's at least in keeping with the other
vsk updated this revision to Diff 130566.
vsk added a comment.
- Upload a diff with context.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42277
Files:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lang/objc/modules-auto-import/Makefile
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/lang/objc/modules-incomplete/Makefile
packages/Python/ll
34 matches
Mail list logo
