Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB Evolution

2016-08-10 Thread Chris Lattner via lldb-dev
On Aug 9, 2016, at 8:42 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev wrote: > #2 could potentially be improved by lit style tests. +1 to this. > Again, the real question is just how much effort are we actually prepared to > put into this? I'd love it if there were entire days

Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB Evolution

2016-08-10 Thread Chris Lattner via lldb-dev
> On Aug 9, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev > wrote: > > So perhaps it would be reasonable for us to standardize on something like > this: > > Main Module Header > Local/Private Headers > lldb/... > llvm/... > System #includes This makes sense to me,

Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 1 has been tagged

2016-08-10 Thread Brian Cain via lldb-dev
[earlier I had accidentally sent this message to only Hans, re-sending as reply-all now] When I tried rc1 on sles11.3 x86_64, msan's getrlimit test fails to build for lack of prlimit(). SLES11.3 has glibc 2.11.3. Is there a minimum required glibc? I think this test implementation previously

Re: [lldb-dev] Loadable Code Segment Information & SectionType in LLDB

2016-08-10 Thread Abhishek Aggarwal via lldb-dev
Hi Greg My comments are inlined: On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Greg Clayton wrote: > > > On Aug 9, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Abhishek Aggarwal via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hello all > > > > I have following 2 queries: > > > > 1. Can SB APIs of LLDB

Re: [lldb-dev] LLDB Evolution

2016-08-10 Thread Pavel Labath via lldb-dev
I've started to do some cleanup of the include header order (r278222). It doesn't get everything compiling after a clang-format, but it got me about half way. +1 on the include order proposed by Zach. I agree that better modularization would improve testability and have a positive impact on the