> On Oct 31, 2016, at 9:35 AM, Tamas Berghammer wrote:
>
> tberghammer accepted this revision.
> tberghammer added a comment.
> This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
>
> The patch generally looks good to me. I added a few high level thought about
> register
jasonmolenda closed this revision.
jasonmolenda added a comment.
Committed in r285662.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D25864
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
tberghammer accepted this revision.
tberghammer added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
The patch generally looks good to me. I added a few high level thought about
register context but they are clearly out of scope for this change. Also next
time please upload your
labath added a comment.
Tamas is not in this week. He should be back on monday.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D25864
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
jasonmolenda updated this revision to Diff 75977.
jasonmolenda added a comment.
I believe this rewrite of the original patch addresses Tamas' feedback (thanks
Tamas!) I dropped a lot of the changes in the original; I switch
EmulateInstructionARM64 from using DWARF register numbering to use
jasonmolenda added a comment.
Hi Tamas, sorry for not replying earlier, something urgent came up that I
needed to look at.
Thanks for the review. I agree with using your existing arm64 register enums
in lldb-arm64-register-enums.h. I'd like to remove the enums in
RegisterInfos_arm64.h
tberghammer added a comment.
A few high level comments:
- I have the feeling you ported much more code over to use the LLDB register
numbers then it would be strictly necessary. I am not sure if it is good or bad
as it can help us consolidate the confusion around the different register