Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Optimised-code debugging experience Round Table

Hi Eric & Orlando, It’s great to see interest in a lot of different aspects of debug info. At the same time, I’m concerned about a risk to making the topic so broad that we don’t have time to get through all the things people want to get through. I’m thinking there’s a different way to slice

Re: [lldb-dev] [Openmp-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: End-to-end testing

Renato wrote: > If you want to do the test in Clang all the way to asm, you need to > make sure the back-end is built. Clang is not always build with all > back-ends, possibly even none. This is no different than today. Many tests in Clang require a specific target to exist. Grep clang/test for

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing list changes this week

> -Original Message- > From: Tom Stellard > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 3:14 PM > To: Roman Lebedev > Cc: Robinson, Paul ; Shoaib Meenai > ; Mehdi AMINI ; llvm- > d...@lists.llvm.org; cfe-dev ; openmp-dev (openmp- > d...@lists.llvm.org) ; LLDB Dev d...@lists.llvm.org> > Subject:

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] Mailing list changes this week

+1. And put it in the email (subject?). While it’s possible to derive a count from a hash manually, better to have it in the email in the first place. You can’t rely on order-of-email-delivery to reflect order-of-commit. --paulr From: llvm-dev On Behalf Of Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev Sent:

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: End-to-end testing

> -Original Message- > From: cfe-dev On Behalf Of Renato Golin > via cfe-dev > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 11:24 AM > To: David Greene > Cc: llvm-...@lists.llvm.org; cfe-...@lists.llvm.org; Gerolf Hoflehner > ; openmp-...@lists.llvm.org; lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re:

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: End-to-end testing

David Greene, will you be at the LLVM Dev Meeting? If so, could you sign up for a Round Table session on this topic? Obviously lots to discuss and concerns to be addressed. In particular I think there are two broad categories of tests that would have to be segregated just by the nature of their

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: End-to-end testing

> -Original Message- > From: llvm-dev On Behalf Of David Greene > via llvm-dev > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2019 9:17 PM > To: Mehdi AMINI > Cc: llvm-...@lists.llvm.org; cfe-...@lists.llvm.org; openmp- > d...@lists.llvm.org; lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev]

Re: [lldb-dev] Adding DWARF5 accelerator table support to llvm

> -Original Message- > From: Pavel Labath [mailto:lab...@google.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:14 AM > To: jdevliegh...@apple.com; LLVM Dev; LLDB; David Blaikie; Robinson, Paul > Subject: Adding DWARF5 accelerator table support to llvm > > Hello all, > > In

Re: [lldb-dev] Resolving dynamic type based on RTTI fails in case of type names inequality in DWARF and mangled symbols

The linkage-name attribute was really intended for definitions of objects that have static memory addresses (static/global variables, and functions), but adding it to a class description would have an obvious meaning and seems completely in line with how DWARF works. Given the size of mangled

Re: [lldb-dev] [Openmp-dev] [6.0.0 Release] Scheduling the release

> -Original Message- > From: lldb-dev [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Hans > Wennborg via lldb-dev > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 10:07 AM > To: Chandler Carruth > Cc: llvm-dev; Release-testers; cfe-dev; openmp-dev (openmp- > d...@lists.llvm.org); LLDB Dev >

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [6.0.0 Release] Scheduling the release

> -Original Message- > From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.go...@linaro.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2017 11:52 AM > To: Robinson, Paul > Cc: Hans Wennborg; Release-testers; llvm-dev; cfe-dev; openmp-dev (openmp- > d...@lists.llvm.org); LLDB Dev (lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org) > Subject:

Re: [lldb-dev] Prologue instructions having line information

> -Original Message- > From: lldb-dev [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Chris > Quenelle via lldb-dev > Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 4:03 PM > To: Jim Ingham > Cc: LLDB > Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] Prologue instructions having line information > > > > On Sep 14,

Re: [lldb-dev] Prologue instructions having line information

The DWARF line table hasn't fundamentally changed since DWARF 2, and the model is that each instruction maps to one source location (or to "line 0" for no specific source location). While it is technically possible for the _encoding_ of the line table to express more than one source location for

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [5.0.0 Release] Only 3 release blockers left, please help fix!

> -Original Message- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Hans > Wennborg via llvm-dev > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 6:06 PM > To: llvm-dev; cfe-dev; LLDB Dev; openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org) > Subject: [llvm-dev] [5.0.0 Release] Only 3

Re: [lldb-dev] Xcode and Pascal (FPC)

I am not an LLDB developer, but based on the symptom you reported, there are a couple of different possibilities for why it occurs. One possibility is that FPC up-shifts all the names in the debug info, but does not add the "case-insensitive" indication. This would be a bug in the compiler.

Re: [lldb-dev] Recent Linux test failures

to:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of > Robinson, Paul via lldb-dev > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:10 AM > To: LLDB Dev (lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org) > Subject: [lldb-dev] Recent Linux test failures > > Yesterday I mentioned that I had some LLDB test failures while trying an >

Re: [lldb-dev] DWARF v5 unit headers

we will have to teach LLDB to understand them (currently we expect only the GNU versions) so a heads up for that change would be appreciated. Other then this I expect no issue regarding the addition of dwarf v5 support for LLDB. Tamas On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:25 AM Robinson, Paul via lldb-de

[lldb-dev] DWARF v5 unit headers

I'm planning to commit a patch (http://reviews.llvm.org/D30206) which will cause Clang/LLVM to emit correct unit headers if you ask for version 5. I've run the lldb tests and I *think* I pointed to my modified Clang correctly (cmake with -DLLDB_TEST_COMPILER=/my/clang) and AFAICT it does not

[lldb-dev] FW: [Dwarf-Discuss] DWARF Version 5 Standard Released

-Original Message- From: Dwarf-Discuss [mailto:dwarf-discuss-boun...@lists.dwarfstd.org] On Behalf Of Michael Eager Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 12:11 PM To: DWARF Workgroup; DWARF Subject: [Dwarf-Discuss] DWARF Version 5 Standard Released The DWARF Debugging Information Format

Re: [lldb-dev] RTTI does not work stable in LLDB.

Yes, I do get that it was just unfortunate timing. Sorry for failing at being light-hearted. I suspect the compiler can be persuaded to emit a name consistent with the demangling of the vtable name. Despite being the way-things-have-worked for a long time, it still seems moderately fragile,

Re: [lldb-dev] RTTI does not work stable in LLDB.

It's not practical for the DWARF to try to identify the actual address of the vtable; that address might not be available. it seems like we could hang onto the linkage_name of the vtable though, somewhere, so you wouldn't be relying on the demangler you have available at runtime to produce the

Re: [lldb-dev] RTTI does not work stable in LLDB.

So is LLDB expecting the name in the DWARF info to match the demangled name of the vtable pointer? The DWARF spec does not really specify what the name of a template instantiation should be, and in particular does not *want* to specify whether it matches any given demangler's opinion of the

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] [4.0.0 Release] The branch is here, the release process starts

Also, compiler-rt release_40 not set up yet? Thanks, --paulr > -Original Message- > From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Anton > Korobeynikov via cfe-dev > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 9:31 AM > To: Hans Wennborg > Cc: llvm-dev; Nicolai Hähnle; cfe-dev;

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [Release-testers] [Openmp-dev] [4.0 Release] Schedule and call for testers

> -Original Message- > From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Michal > Górny via cfe-dev > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 3:33 PM > To: Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev > Cc: llvm-dev; Release-testers; openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org); > cfe-dev > Subject:

[lldb-dev] Closing spam bugs has a consequence, be aware

I just went in and bulk-closed a dozen or so of today's spam bugs. This made me realize that doing so sends an email to the submitter's address, which allows the submitter to collect valid addresses of the people who are trying to clean up the mess. Anyone who wants to help with the cleanup,

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [llvm-foundation] Sequential ID Git hook

I could see wanting to compare data from master and a release branch. If that means sequential IDs need to work across branches, then we're back to needing a fancier solution than 'rev-list –count'. --paulr From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Chris Matthews

Re: [lldb-dev] [Openmp-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

> On 6 Jul 2016, at 16:16, Robinson, Paul wrote: > > > > As Daniel pointed out, an enumeration like that knows no bounds, and > > starting a list invites endless what-if questions. That's why I settled > > for a more qualitative statement; we have to acknowledge that

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.go...@linaro.org] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 4:15 PM To: Robinson, Paul Cc: Clang Dev; LLDB Dev; LLVM Dev; Reid Kleckner; llvm-foundat...@lists.llvm.org Subject: RE: [cfe-dev] [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook On 30 Jun 2016 10:20 p.m.,

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

> -Original Message- > From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Renato > Golin via cfe-dev > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 9:49 AM > To: Reid Kleckner > Cc: LLVM Dev; llvm-foundat...@lists.llvm.org; Clang Dev; LLDB Dev > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [lldb-dev]

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

> -Original Message- > From: hwennb...@google.com [mailto:hwennb...@google.com] On Behalf Of Hans > Wennborg > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > I still don’t understand what “confusion” could be caused by going from > 3.9 to 4.0. Could someone

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

| Note that 81 > 8, so those examples would still work. Right, but also 81 > 9 so that example would not work, if you don't understand how the project does version numbers. As different projects work by different rules, I guess the interpretation of version numbers by other tools would have to

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers

> -Original Message- > From: hwennb...@google.com [mailto:hwennb...@google.com] On Behalf Of Hans > Wennborg > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:27 AM > To: Robinson, Paul > Cc: Rafael Espíndola; Tom Stellard; llvm-...@lists.llvm.org; Release- > testers; cfe-dev; openmp-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers

> -Original Message- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of > Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 7:47 AM > To: Tom Stellard > Cc: llvm-dev; Release-testers; openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org); > LLDB Dev; cfe-dev > Subject: Re:

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers

> -Original Message- > From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Tom > Stellard via cfe-dev > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 7:12 AM > To: Rafael Espíndola > Cc: llvm-dev; Release-testers; openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org); > LLDB Dev; cfe-dev > Subject: Re:

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] GitHub anyone?

> > How do you get monotonically increasing number with a history graph? > > I think what we're trying to get is a "pushed" revision number, i.e. > tracking the state of the upstream repositories at a given time. I think I've mentioned this before but internally we are (mostly) using "rev-list

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] GitHub anyone?

> -Original Message- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Mehdi > Amini via llvm-dev > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 2:38 PM > To: Bill Kelly > Cc: LLVM Dev; Clang Dev; LLDB Dev > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] GitHub anyone? > > > > On May 31, 2016, at 2:01

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] GitHub anyone?

> -Original Message- > From: mehdi.am...@apple.com [mailto:mehdi.am...@apple.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 3:54 PM > To: Robinson, Paul > Cc: Bill Kelly; Clang Dev; LLDB Dev; llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] GitHub anyone? > > > > On May 31, 2016, at 3:38 PM,