> On Oct 11, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Matthias Braun wrote:
>
> I reverted things in r344318 now.
>
>> On Oct 10, 2018, at 5:02 PM, Jim Ingham wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for looking into this!
>>
>> When I was first working on inlined stepping, I found a bunch of cases where
>> the line table info
I reverted things in r344318 now.
> On Oct 10, 2018, at 5:02 PM, Jim Ingham wrote:
>
> Thanks for looking into this!
>
> When I was first working on inlined stepping, I found a bunch of cases where
> the line table info and the ranges for the inlined subroutines disagreed. I
> remember
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthias Braun [mailto:ma...@braunis.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 3:50 PM
> To: Robinson, Paul
> Cc: jing...@apple.com; v...@apple.com; llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org; lldb-
> d...@lists.llvm.org
> Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm] r343874 - DwarfDebug:
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthias Braun [mailto:ma...@braunis.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 3:48 PM
> To: Robinson, Paul
> Cc: jing...@apple.com; v...@apple.com; llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org; lldb-
> d...@lists.llvm.org
> Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm] r343874 - DwarfDebug:
> On Oct 10, 2018, at 12:18 PM, via llvm-commits
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: jing...@apple.com [mailto:jing...@apple.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:20 PM
>> To: Vedant Kumar
>> Cc: Robinson, Paul; Vedant Kumar via llvm-commits; LLDB; Matthias Braun
>>
> On Oct 10, 2018, at 12:18 PM, via llvm-commits
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: jing...@apple.com [mailto:jing...@apple.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:20 PM
>> To: Vedant Kumar
>> Cc: Robinson, Paul; Vedant Kumar via llvm-commits; LLDB; Matthias Braun
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: jing...@apple.com [mailto:jing...@apple.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 2:20 PM
> To: Vedant Kumar
> Cc: Robinson, Paul; Vedant Kumar via llvm-commits; LLDB; Matthias Braun
> Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm] r343874 - DwarfDebug: Pick next location in
> On Oct 10, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Vedant Kumar wrote:
>
>> On Oct 10, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Matthias Braun wrote:
>>
>> So I haven't worked much on debug info, but here's the explanation for my
>> patches:
>> My original motivation was getting rid of code some code in the llvm codegen
>> that for
> On Oct 10, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Matthias Braun wrote:
>
> So I haven't worked much on debug info, but here's the explanation for my
> patches:
> My original motivation was getting rid of code some code in the llvm codegen
> that for spills and reloads just picked the next debug location around.
So I haven't worked much on debug info, but here's the explanation for my
patches:
My original motivation was getting rid of code some code in the llvm codegen
that for spills and reloads just picked the next debug location around. That
just seemed wrong to me, as spills and reloads really are
Sorry for being late to the party, I have been away.
I am not persuaded that this patch is functionally correct.
It's lovely to reduce size, but not at the cost of telling
un-truths about source locations of instructions. If the
instructions at the top of the block have no source location,
and
So in the test scenario, we have this code:
printf("// Set second break point at this line.");
(text_list.push_back(std::string("!!!")));
and we have a breakpoint on the printf line. We've just continued to hit the
breakpoint at printf. Then we do next twice. That should certainly
No worries, I’ve relaxed the test for now in r343899 to get the bots going
again. Essentially, the test will just step one more time to make sure the full
effect of the push_back() is visible.
If folks on lldb-dev (cc’d) have a better idea we can try it out.
vedant
> On Oct 5, 2018, at 4:15
Sadly, after this commit TestDataFormatterLibcxxList.py started failing with:
```
output: Process 67333 stopped
* thread #1, queue = 'com.apple.main-thread', stop reason = step over
frame #0: 0x00010eb0 a.out`main at main.cpp:33:16
30
14 matches
Mail list logo
