Just a quick reminder: the early bird registration deadline for the
EuroLLVM 2016 is Feb 3rd.
Registration at: https://intranet.pacifico-meetings.com/GesCoForm/?cfg=887
More info about EuroLLVM 2016 at: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2016-03/
Kind regards,
--
Arnaud
Great, thanks for the confirmation.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 1, 2016, at 1:32 AM, Pavel Labath wrote:
>
>> On 29 January 2016 at 18:43, Jeffrey Tan wrote:
>> Thanks Jim. Is this true for other platforms? Our IDE is going to support
>> Mac and
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26421
Bug ID: 26421
Summary: CommandObjectRegister should set status
eReturnStatusSuccessFinishResult
Product: lldb
Version: 3.8
Hardware: All
OS: All
Thanks guys, will give empty target a try.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Jim Ingham wrote:
> Often when attaching, you know the executable you are planning to attach
> to. So the "normal" workflow is to create a target, then attach to the
> process with that target's
(actually spelling lldb-dev correctly, sorry for the typo)
We'll be at Tied House as usual, starting on Thursday the 4th at 7pm!
If you can, help us plan and RSVP here: http://meetu.ps/2RN2C5
See everyone there!
-Chandler
___
lldb-dev mailing list
On 30 January 2016 at 00:13, William Dillon wrote:
> In a very real sense, no information is lost here.
That is exactly the reason why it looks very hackish. :)
It looks to me like you are trying to work around some other bug,
probably in the code that consumes the
On 29 January 2016 at 18:43, Jeffrey Tan wrote:
> Thanks Jim. Is this true for other platforms? Our IDE is going to support
> Mac and Linux and may extend to Windows some time later.
AFAIK, windows spawns a separate thread to do the actual debugging,
but this is hidden
Speaking for Android Studio, I think that we *could* use a
python-based implementation (hard to say exactly without knowing the
details of the implementation), but I believe a different
implementation could be *easier* to integrate. Plus, if the solution
integrates more closely with lldb, we could
If you want to go with the path to implement it outside LLDB then I would
suggest to implement it with an out of tree plugin written in C++. You can
use the SB API the same way as you can from python and additionally it have
a few advantages:
* You have a C/C++ API what makes it easy to integrate
Often when attaching, you know the executable you are planning to attach to.
So the "normal" workflow is to create a target, then attach to the process with
that target's executable. This is particularly useful for remote debugging,
since having a local copy of the binary will mean less data
10 matches
Mail list logo