Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

Thank you for the update Jonas. I haven't looked at the patch in detail, but (for better or worse) it seems more-or-less like what I would expect at a first glance. One of the things that occurred to me while looking at this is that it would be great to be able to test this code in greater

Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

I've put up a (WIP) patch for the tool (https://reviews.llvm.org/D56822) in case anybody is curious about that. On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:41 PM Jonas Devlieghere wrote: > I've updated the patch with a new version of the prototype: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D56322 > > It uses Pavel's suggestion

Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

I've updated the patch with a new version of the prototype: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56322 It uses Pavel's suggestion to use the function address as a runtime ID. All the deserialization code is generated using templates, with automatic mapping on indices during serialization and

Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 8:42 AM Pavel Labath wrote: > On 09/01/2019 17:15, Jonas Devlieghere wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:05 AM Pavel Labath > > wrote: > > > > On 08/01/2019 21:57, Jonas Devlieghere wrote: > > > Before I got around to coding this

Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

On 09/01/2019 17:15, Jonas Devlieghere wrote: On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:05 AM Pavel Labath > wrote: On 08/01/2019 21:57, Jonas Devlieghere wrote: > Before I got around to coding this up I realized you can't take the > address of constructors in C++, so

Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:05 AM Pavel Labath wrote: > On 08/01/2019 21:57, Jonas Devlieghere wrote: > > Before I got around to coding this up I realized you can't take the > > address of constructors in C++, so the function address won't work as an > > identifier. > > > > You gave up way too

Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

On 08/01/2019 21:57, Jonas Devlieghere wrote: Before I got around to coding this up I realized you can't take the address of constructors in C++, so the function address won't work as an identifier. You gave up way too easily. :P I realized that constructors are going to be tricky, but I

Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

Before I got around to coding this up I realized you can't take the address of constructors in C++, so the function address won't work as an identifier. On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:28 AM Jonas Devlieghere wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:27 AM Frédéric Riss wrote: > >> >> >> > On Jan 8, 2019, at

Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:27 AM Frédéric Riss wrote: > > > > On Jan 8, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Pavel Labath wrote: > > > > On 07/01/2019 22:45, Frédéric Riss wrote: > >>> On Jan 7, 2019, at 11:31 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > wrote: > >>> >

Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

> On Jan 8, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Pavel Labath wrote: > > On 07/01/2019 22:45, Frédéric Riss wrote: >>> On Jan 7, 2019, at 11:31 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev >>> mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>> >>> On 07/01/2019 19:26, Jonas Devlieghere wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 1:40 AM

Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

On 07/01/2019 22:13, Jonas Devlieghere wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 3:52 AM Tamas Berghammer > wrote: One problem is when the behavior of LLDB is not deterministic for whatever reason (e.g. multi threading, unordered maps, etc...). Lets take

Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 3:52 AM Tamas Berghammer wrote: > Thanks Pavel for looping me in. I haven't looked into the actual > implementation of the prototype yet but reading your description I have > some concern regarding the amount of data you capture as I feel it isn't > sufficient to reproduce

Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

On 07/01/2019 19:26, Jonas Devlieghere wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 1:40 AM Pavel Labath > wrote: I've been thinking about how could this be done better, and the best (though not ideal) way I came up with is using the functions address as the key. That's

Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 1:40 AM Pavel Labath wrote: > On 04/01/2019 22:19, Jonas Devlieghere via lldb-dev wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > > > In September I sent out an RFC [1] about adding reproducers to LLDB. > > Over the > > past few months, I landed the reproducer framework, support for the GDB >

Re: [lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

On 04/01/2019 22:19, Jonas Devlieghere via lldb-dev wrote: Hi Everyone, In September I sent out an RFC [1] about adding reproducers to LLDB. Over the past few months, I landed the reproducer framework, support for the GDB remote protocol and a bunch of preparatory changes. There's still an

[lldb-dev] [Reproducers] SBReproducer RFC

Hi Everyone, In September I sent out an RFC [1] about adding reproducers to LLDB. Over the past few months, I landed the reproducer framework, support for the GDB remote protocol and a bunch of preparatory changes. There's still an open code review [2] for dealing with files, but that one is