Re: [lldb-dev] Cross-building lldb

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019, Vadim Chugunov via lldb-dev wrote: Hi, I'm trying (and failing) to cross-build lldb according to these instructions . My cmake command line: cd /workspace/build/lldb &&

[lldb-dev] Inconsistencies in CIE pointer in FDEs in .debug_frame

Hi, I'm looking into something that seems like an inconsistency in handling of the CIE pointer in FDEs in .debug_frame, between how debug info is generated in LLVM and consumed in LLDB. For FDEs in .eh_frame, the CIE pointer/cie_id field is interpreted as an offset from the current FDE -

Re: [lldb-dev] Inconsistencies in CIE pointer in FDEs in .debug_frame

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019, Pavel Labath wrote: On 24/11/2019 23:16, Martin Storsjö via lldb-dev wrote: Hi, I'm looking into something that seems like an inconsistency in handling of the CIE pointer in FDEs in .debug_frame, between how debug info is generated in LLVM and consumed in LLDB

Re: [lldb-dev] Inconsistencies in CIE pointer in FDEs in .debug_frame

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019, Martin Storsjö via lldb-dev wrote: But now I tested this a bit more with ELF setups, and realized that it somehow does seem to do the right thing. It might have something to do with how ELF linkers handle this kind of section that isn't loaded at runtime (and thus perhaps

Re: [lldb-dev] Inconsistencies in CIE pointer in FDEs in .debug_frame

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019, Pavel Labath wrote: So, what elf linkers do is that they link non-loadable (SHF_ALLOC) sections as if they were loaded at address zero. I think it's possible to change that via a linker script, but I think doing that would cause pretty much everything to blow up. This

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] GitHub Migration Schedule and Plans

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Mehdi AMINI wrote: On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:02 PM Martin Storsjö wrote: On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev wrote: > On 10/09/2019 11:05 PM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:16 PM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] GitHub Migration Schedule and Plans

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Tom Stellard via cfe-dev wrote: On 10/09/2019 11:05 PM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:16 PM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Hi, We're less than 2 weeks away from the developer meeting, so I wanted to give an

Re: [lldb-dev] Optional Dependencies in LLDB

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Jonas Devlieghere wrote: Yes, that's correct. This was added in edadb818e5b. Thanks! // Martin ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev

Re: [lldb-dev] Optional Dependencies in LLDB

On Mon, 6 Jan 2020, Jonas Devlieghere via lldb-dev wrote: I just wanted to let you know that most of the work is complete for auto-detecting optional dependencies in LLDB. Unless explicitly specified, optional dependencies like editline will be enabled when available and disabled otherwise.

Re: [lldb-dev] Optional Dependencies in LLDB

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, Jonas Devlieghere wrote: After trying it out I concluded that it should be easy enough to check for the static bindings flag in FindPythonInterpAndLibs.cmake so I've implemented your suggestion in fc6f15d4d2c. Thanks again for bringing this up. Awesome, thanks! Do I

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Renaming The Default Branch

Hi, On Sun, 6 Dec 2020, Mike Edwards via llvm-dev wrote: The change to the default branch setting has been completed.  The new default branch for the llvm-project is now 'main'.  Pushes to the 'master' branch will no longer be accepted.  Please update your workflow to use the new 'main'

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Renaming The Default Branch

Hi Anton, On Mon, 7 Dec 2020, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: It seems it's in the `master` branch: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/78a57069b53a08d5aef98a8472fcfa73dbbc8771 So, is the problem resolved? Yes, now the branch seems to have updated - I guess I didn't wait for long enough

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [RFC] Deprecate email code reviews in favor of Phabricator

On Mon, 3 May 2021, Krzysztof Parzyszek via cfe-dev wrote: Potential future direction: This section presents a potential future evolution of the review process.  Christian has conducted experiments suggesting that we can replace the XXX-commits mailing lists with notifications directly from

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] [RFC] Deprecate email code reviews in favor of Phabricator

Hi Christian, On Tue, 4 May 2021, Christian Kühnel wrote: Having your own, custom Herald rules is always superior to general rules for a project. They are naturally targeted towards your use cases. However I wanted to offer a proper email integration for all users without having to write their 

Re: [lldb-dev] The two PDB plugins in LLDB

CC Nico On Wed, 3 Nov 2021, Pavel Labath wrote: [+ aleksandr] On 03/11/2021 09:18, Martin Storsjö via lldb-dev wrote: As far as I know, this is clearly the intended direction, but my understanding is also that the native PDB plugin isn't quite on the same functionality level yet. While

Re: [lldb-dev] The two PDB plugins in LLDB

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021, Raphael Isemann via lldb-dev wrote: Unless removing the non-native PDB plugin has some negative impact on users (e.g., missing features in native plugin that work with the non-native plugin), I would propose we delete it and only keep the native PDB plugin in LLDB which