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

Hello all, In it was brought up that there are at least two parties interested in having DWARF5 accelerator tables implemented, so I'm writing this email to see if there's anyone else interested in this topic, and to try to synchronize our efforts. Our

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

Hello, I hope I will have time to help you with that. I discussed dwarfv5 .debug_names implementation with involved party from RH. Anyway even if can't help much could you keep me in the loop please? On 01/17/2018 07:13 PM, Pavel Labath via llvm-dev wrote: > Hello all, > > In

[lldb-dev] [6.0.0 Release] Release Candidate 1 tagged

Dear testers, Start your engines; 6.0.0-rc1 was just tagged. I know there are still open blockers and it's early in the process in a way, but I'd like to find out where we are. Please run the test script, let me know the results, and upload binaries. Thanks, Hans

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

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Jonas Devlieghere via llvm-dev > wrote: > > As mentioned by Adrian in the comment you linked, I too am looking at DWARFv5 > accelerator tables in LLVM. > > To give you some background: my motivation is that I want to upstream support >

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

Hi Pavel, As mentioned by Adrian in the comment you linked, I too am looking at DWARFv5 accelerator tables in LLVM. To give you some background: my motivation is that I want to upstream support for (Apple style) accelerator tables in llvm-dsymutil, which is currently missing because the way

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] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Adrian Prantl via lldb-dev wrote: > Hi lldb-dev! > > I've been investigating some spurious LLDB test suite failures on > http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/ that had to do with build artifacts from > previous runs lying around in the test

[lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

Hi lldb-dev! I've been investigating some spurious LLDB test suite failures on http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/ that had to do with build artifacts from previous runs lying around in the test directories and this prompted me to ask a couple of general noob questions about the LLDB testsuite.

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote: > > Hi lldb-dev! > > I've been investigating some spurious LLDB test suite failures on > http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/ that had to do with build artifacts from > previous runs lying around in the test directories and

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

If we're going to be making any significant changes to the way inferiors are compiled, why not use cmake? Make clean is already not implemented correctly in many places, leading to lots of remnants left over in the source tree after test runs. Furthermore, make is run every single time

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Davide Italiano wrote: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Adrian Prantl via lldb-dev > wrote: >> Hi lldb-dev! >> >> I've been investigating some spurious LLDB test suite failures on >>

[lldb-dev] [Bug 35991] New: [lldb] Please backport LLDB test regression fixes to 6.0 branch

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35991 Bug ID: 35991 Summary: [lldb] Please backport LLDB test regression fixes to 6.0 branch Product: lldb Version: 6.0 Hardware: PC OS: Linux Status: NEW

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Adrian Prantl via lldb-dev wrote: > Hi lldb-dev! > > I've been investigating some spurious LLDB test suite failures on > http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/ that had to do with build artifacts from > previous runs lying around in the test

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

FWIW I'm completely on board with everything Adrian has said in this thread :) -eric On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:00 AM Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Jan 17, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Jonas Devlieghere via llvm-dev < > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > As

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Davide Italiano via lldb-dev > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Adrian Prantl via lldb-dev > wrote: >> Hi lldb-dev! >> >> I've been investigating some spurious LLDB test suite failures on >>

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:31 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > I don't think new test authors really need to add CMake any more so than they > currently need to understand Make. Which is to say, not very much. Most > Makefiles are currently 1-2 lines of code that simply does

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

Note that we're going off topic from the original goal, and I just want to re-iterate that I fully support smaller, incremental changes. But since I like talking about lit so much, I can't help but chime in :) If we *did* want to move to a lit based system for the end to end based tests, the

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

I don't know what would be involved in getting the tests building out of tree with Make. But I do know it would be simple with CMake. I'm sure it's probably not terrible with Make either, I just don't know enough about it to say. One thing that I do like about CMake is that it can be integrated

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

Everything sounds good on this thread. My two cents: We should add some post verification after each test that looks for file that are left over after the "clean" phase. This can help us catch the tests that aren't cleaning up after themselves. This will help us weed out the bad tests and fix

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:26 PM Greg Clayton wrote: > I don't see why we would go with a lit based system that manually > specifies the arguments. Seems like a pain to get the right compiler flags > for creating shared libs on different systems (or executables, frameworks, >

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 12:41 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > If we're going to be making any significant changes to the way inferiors are > compiled, why not use cmake? Make clean is already not implemented correctly > in many places, leading to lots of remnants left over

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

Lit provides some helpful utilities which make it easier to write portable tests. E.g %t, for temporary test directories, and portable replacements for things like `diff -r`. This is how compiler-rt's end-to-end tests are structured, and we haven't needed any build-system like functionality

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:56 PM, Jim Ingham wrote: > >> >> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:50 PM, Jim Ingham wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Adrian Prantl

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

I disagree that understanding CMake is required to build LLVM. When I build top-of-tree on Linux (as opposed to a build that is Hexagon only) I make a build directory at the same level as my checkout, and simply run “cmake ../llvm”. I don’t need to know anything. -- Qualcomm Innovation

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > I don't know what would be involved in getting the tests building out of tree > with Make. But I do know it would be simple with CMake. I'm sure it's > probably not terrible with Make either, I just don't know

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:44 PM Jim Ingham wrote: > > I don't see any of these operations that can't be done in a make file, > after all you can run arbitrary commands there. We do make directories, > dylibs, move and strip files, etc in some of the makefiles in the test

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 1:13 PM, Davide Italiano wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Davide Italiano > wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Adrian Prantl via lldb-dev >> wrote: >>> Hi lldb-dev! >>> >>> I've

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 1:45 PM, Vedant Kumar wrote: > > I would prefer having all of our test dependencies tracked by CMake for all > the reasons Zach brought up, but I think we should defer that undertaking > until after the bots are more stable. We have some immediate

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote: > > > >> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:31 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: >> >> I don't think new test authors really need to add CMake any more so than >> they currently need to understand Make. Which is to

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > I don't know what would be involved in getting the tests building out of tree > with Make. But I do know it would be simple with CMake. I'm sure it's > probably not terrible with Make either, I just don't know

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:47 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:39 PM Adrian Prantl wrote: > >> On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: >> >> I don't know what would be involved in getting the

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:50 PM, Jim Ingham wrote: > > > >> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:31 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: >>> >>> I don't think new test authors really need to

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:04 PM Adrian Prantl wrote: > > On the other hand: > - everybody already knows make > I'm not sold on this particular reason. Make is not the LLVM build system, CMake is. "I don't know the build system of the project I actually work on, but I do

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:26 PM Greg Clayton wrote: > I don't see why we would go with a lit based system that manually specifies > the arguments. Seems like a pain to get the right compiler

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

I would prefer having all of our test dependencies tracked by CMake for all the reasons Zach brought up, but I think we should defer that undertaking until after the bots are more stable. We have some immediate problems caused by stale in-tree test artifacts. As a first milestone, it'd be great

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote: > > > >> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:50 PM, Jim Ingham wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Jan 17, 2018, at 2:31 PM, Zachary

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

As a general rule, I support moving towards explicit run lines and lit-style tests, but some care has to be taken. If you examine the common Makefiles, you'll see that there's already a lot of special logic for different platforms and compilers. It might be hard to maintain that if we go back to

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

Yeah, w.r.t. the actual builder part, it seems to me any option is going to be sufficiently simple to use that it would be hard for the incremental benefits to lldb developers to ever amortize the cost of switching. The only compelling reason to me is if one or the other tool made it much

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:05 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > Note that we're going off topic from the original goal, and I just want to > re-iterate that I fully support smaller, incremental changes. Indeed. So just to close the loop on this, it sounds like everybody is in

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:39 PM Adrian Prantl wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > I don't know what would be involved in getting the tests building out of > tree with Make. But I do know it would be simple with CMake. I'm

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:50 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:44 PM Jim Ingham wrote: > > I don't see any of these operations that can't be done in a make file, after > all you can run arbitrary commands there. We do make

Re: [lldb-dev] Questions about the LLDB testsuite and improving its reliability

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 3:26 PM, Greg Clayton via lldb-dev > wrote: > > Everything sounds good on this thread. My two cents: > > We should add some post verification after each test that looks for file that > are left over after the "clean" phase. This can help us

Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [6.0.0 Release] Release Candidate 1 tagged

We're now using it as the main compiler in the OpenMandriva development builds -- no issues so far (after rebuilding a couple of key packages for testing). ttyl bero On 17 January 2018 at 18:53, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers wrote: > Dear testers, > > Start