[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

jasonmolenda added a comment. In D100515#2695559 , @JDevlieghere wrote: > In D100515#2695395 , @justincohen > wrote: > >> Out of curiosity: Typically should one be able to set >>

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds. This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rGfdbb5a7a91b0: [lldb] Add code and data address mask to Process (authored by JDevlieghere). Herald added a project: LLDB. Repository: rG LLVM

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

JDevlieghere added a comment. In D100515#2695395 , @justincohen wrote: > Out of curiosity: Typically should one be able to set > target.process.virtual-addressable-bits after the target has been created? > Or is it expected that users will need to

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

justincohen added a comment. Out of curiosity: Typically should one be able to set target.process.virtual-addressable-bits after the target has been created? Or is it expected that users will need to run in the following order only: settings set target.process.virtual-addressable-bits ...

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

JDevlieghere updated this revision to Diff 338128. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100515/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100515 Files: lldb/include/lldb/Target/Process.h lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp lldb/source/Target/TargetProperties.td Index:

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

pcc added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp:5569-5570 + + if (m_code_address_mask == 0) +return -1; // All bits are used for addressing. + jasonmolenda wrote: > pcc wrote: > > JDevlieghere wrote: > > > jasonmolenda wrote: > > > >

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

jasonmolenda added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp:5569-5570 + + if (m_code_address_mask == 0) +return -1; // All bits are used for addressing. + pcc wrote: > JDevlieghere wrote: > > jasonmolenda wrote: > > > pcc wrote: > > > >

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

pcc added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp:5569-5570 + + if (m_code_address_mask == 0) +return -1; // All bits are used for addressing. + JDevlieghere wrote: > jasonmolenda wrote: > > pcc wrote: > > > Is this part correct? (Same

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

jasonmolenda accepted this revision. jasonmolenda added a comment. I think we've heard from everyone involved with this & it's good to land. Thanks for bringing this home. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100515/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100515

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

JDevlieghere added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp:5569-5570 + + if (m_code_address_mask == 0) +return -1; // All bits are used for addressing. + jasonmolenda wrote: > pcc wrote: > > Is this part correct? (Same below.) In D100521

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

jasonmolenda added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp:5569-5570 + + if (m_code_address_mask == 0) +return -1; // All bits are used for addressing. + pcc wrote: > Is this part correct? (Same below.) In D100521 you have > ``` > if

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

justincohen accepted this revision. justincohen added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. > On Darwin, we use the same number of bits for both code and data, but given > the way ptrace() behaves on Linux, I'm guessing this may not be the case > everywhere. Should we

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

jasonmolenda added a comment. In D100515#2690972 , @omjavaid wrote: > > This looks very good and I have couple of highlights to make from > Linux/AArch64 perspective: > qHostInfo is not sufficient for mask calculation on Linux because both >

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

pcc added inline comments. Comment at: lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp:5569-5570 + + if (m_code_address_mask == 0) +return -1; // All bits are used for addressing. + Is this part correct? (Same below.) In D100521 you have ``` if (pc & pac_sign_extension)

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

omjavaid added a comment. In D100515#2690225 , @jasonmolenda wrote: > Thanks Jonas, I think this change to Process can cover > > Omair's use case, where the number of bits are used hardcoded. > > The Darwin use case were ProcessGDBRemote,

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

DavidSpickett added a comment. > I don't feel strongly about the method name. Justin used > Process::GetPointerAuthenticationAddressMask which makes it sound specific to > ARM v8.3 ptrauth. The ARM v8.5 MTE tagging might be another use case (or TBI > as Omair has noted). I'd go with the

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

jasonmolenda added a comment. Thanks Jonas, I think this change to Process can cover Omair's use case, where the number of bits are used hardcoded. The Darwin use case were ProcessGDBRemote, DynamicLoaderDarwinKernel, and ProcessMachCore can all set the number of bits used in addressing

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

JDevlieghere created this revision. JDevlieghere added reviewers: jasonmolenda, omjavaid, justincohen, labath, DavidSpickett. JDevlieghere requested review of this revision. Implement Jason's suggestion from D99944 to have both a code and data mask, while still