[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D99944: [LLDB] AArch64 PAC elf-core stack unwinder support

omjavaid updated this revision to Diff 340686. omjavaid added a comment. Moved mask calculation to ABISysV_arm64 class. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99944/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99944 Files: lldb/source/Plugins/ABI/AArch64/ABISysV_arm64.cpp

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D99944: [LLDB] AArch64 PAC elf-core stack unwinder support

JDevlieghere added a comment. Coincidentally, I was just in need of something similar. Jason pointed me to this discussion so I took the liberty of implementing his suggestion in D100515 CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99944/new/

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D99944: [LLDB] AArch64 PAC elf-core stack unwinder support

omjavaid added a comment. In D99944#2684280 , @jasonmolenda wrote: > Hi Omair, sorry for the delay in looking at this. It seems like we have two > overlapping patches here, @justincohen patch in > https://reviews.llvm.org/D98886 and this one. > > I'm

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D99944: [LLDB] AArch64 PAC elf-core stack unwinder support

jasonmolenda added a comment. I think this will come down to, who wants to implement a patch that can set/get either form through Process API. The mask might be a more general format, so if Justin is willing to update his patch to that we can add Omair's test case to his patch? CHANGES

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D99944: [LLDB] AArch64 PAC elf-core stack unwinder support

justincohen added a comment. In D99944#2684280 , @jasonmolenda wrote: > Omair, Justin, what do you think here? I don't think it's especially hard to > accept this in terms of # of bits OR a mask, and we should use the more > general internal rep in

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D99944: [LLDB] AArch64 PAC elf-core stack unwinder support

jasonmolenda added a comment. Hi Omair, sorry for the delay in looking at this. It seems like we have two overlapping patches here, @justincohen patch in https://reviews.llvm.org/D98886 and this one. I'm not convinced that we'll see a target where we have noncontiguous bits used for

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D99944: [LLDB] AArch64 PAC elf-core stack unwinder support

labath added a comment. Setting the address size from the register context is a bit awkward. We have one register context per thread, and they all will be competing to set the value (it should always be the same value under normal circumstances, but it still makes for a strange relationship).

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D99944: [LLDB] AArch64 PAC elf-core stack unwinder support

omjavaid created this revision. omjavaid added reviewers: labath, justincohen, jasonmolenda, DavidSpickett. Herald added subscribers: danielkiss, kristof.beyls. omjavaid requested review of this revision. This patch adds a new field to Process class which represents no of bits used for addresses