[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r252963 - Another little stepping optimization: if any of the source step commands are running through a range
Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Nov 12 16:03:16 PST 2015
The error messages are always different because the error message is
printed by the test. I'm going to try to load up the executable
for TestStepNoDebug in the debugger and get a disassembly and do the step
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 4:01 PM Jim Ingham <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
> Is the line they stepped to - instead of the expected line - always line 0?
>
> Jim
>
> > On Nov 12, 2015, at 3:52 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > This breaks about 12 tests on Windows. The patch looks simple, but this
> isn't really my area, is there anything I can give you to help diagnose
> what might be wrong? The following tests fail:
> >
> > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: Test-rdar-9974002.py (Windows zturner-win81 8
> 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestDataFormatterHexCaps.py (Windows zturner-win81
> 8 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestDataFormatterNamedSummaries.py (Windows
> zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7,
> GenuineIntel)
> > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestDataFormatterPythonSynth.py (Windows
> zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7,
> GenuineIntel)
> > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestDataFormatterSynth.py (Windows zturner-win81 8
> 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestDiamond.py (Windows zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200
> AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestFormatPropagation.py (Windows zturner-win81 8
> 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestFrames.py (Windows zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200
> AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestInlineStepping.py (Windows zturner-win81 8
> 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestSBData.py (Windows zturner-win81 8 6.2.9200
> AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestStepNoDebug.py (Windows zturner-win81 8
> 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> > FAIL: LLDB (suite) :: TestThreadJump.py (Windows zturner-win81 8
> 6.2.9200 AMD64 Intel64 Family 6 Model 45 Stepping 7, GenuineIntel)
> >
> > And here's the error I get from one of the failing tests, although I
> don't know how much insight it provides.
> >
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > File
> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\lldbtest.py", line
> 536, in wrapper
> > return func(self, *args, **kwargs)
> > File
> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\lldbtest.py", line
> 2228, in dwarf_test_method
> > return attrvalue(self)
> > File
> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\lldbtest.py", line
> 608, in wrapper
> > func(*args, **kwargs)
> > File
> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\functionalities\step-avoids-no-debug\TestStepNoDebug.py",
> line 41, in test_step_in_with_python
> > self.do_step_in_past_nodebug()
> > File
> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\functionalities\step-avoids-no-debug\TestStepNoDebug.py",
> line 105, in do_step_in_past_nodebug
> > self.hit_correct_line ("intermediate_return_value =
> called_from_nodebug_actual(some_value)")
> > File
> "D:\src\llvm\tools\lldb\packages\Python\lldbsuite\test\functionalities\step-avoids-no-debug\TestStepNoDebug.py",
> line 57, in hit_correct_line
> > self.assertTrue (cur_line == target_line, "Stepped to line %d
> instead of expected %d with pattern '%s'."%(cur_line, target_line, pattern))
> > AssertionError: False is not True : Stepped to line 0 instead of
> expected 19 with pattern 'intermediate_return_value =
> called_from_nodebug_actual(some_value)'.
> > Config=i686-d:\src\llvmbuild\ninja_release\bin\clang.exe
> > Session info generated @ Thu Nov 12 15:44:43 2015
> > To rerun this test, issue the following command from the 'test'
> directory:
> >
> > If it's not obvious what the problem is, can we revert this until we
> figure it out and then reland it?
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 2:34 PM Jim Ingham via lldb-commits <
> lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > Author: jingham
> > Date: Thu Nov 12 16:32:09 2015
> > New Revision: 252963
> >
> > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=252963&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Another little stepping optimization: if any of the source step commands
> are running through a range
> > of addresses, and the range has no branches, instead of running to the
> last instruction and
> > single-stepping over that, run to the first instruction after the end of
> the range. If there
> > are no branches in the current range, then the bytes right after it have
> to be in the current
> > function, and have to be instructions not data in code, so this is
> safe. And it cuts down one
> > extra stepi per source range step.
> >
> > Incidentally, this also works around a bug in the llvm Intel assembler
> where it treats the "rep"
> > prefix as a separate instruction from the repeated instruction. If that
> were at the end of a
> > line range, then we would put a trap in place of the repeated
> instruction, which is undefined
> > behavior. Current processors just ignore the repetition in this case,
> which changes program behavior.
> > Since there would never be a line range break after the rep prefix,
> always doing the range stepping
> > to the beginning of the new range avoids this problem.
> >
> > <rdar://problem/23461686>
> >
> > Modified:
> > lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp
> >
> > Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp
> > URL:
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp?rev=252963&r1=252962&r2=252963&view=diff
> >
> ==============================================================================
> > --- lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp (original)
> > +++ lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepRange.cpp Thu Nov 12 16:32:09
> 2015
> > @@ -390,12 +390,19 @@ ThreadPlanStepRange::SetNextBranchBreakp
> > if (branch_index == UINT32_MAX)
> > {
> > branch_index = instructions->GetSize() - 1;
> > + InstructionSP last_inst =
> instructions->GetInstructionAtIndex(branch_index);
> > + size_t last_inst_size =
> last_inst->GetOpcode().GetByteSize();
> > + run_to_address = last_inst->GetAddress();
> > + run_to_address.Slide(last_inst_size);
> > + }
> > + else if (branch_index - pc_index > 1)
> > + {
> > + run_to_address =
> instructions->GetInstructionAtIndex(branch_index)->GetAddress();
> > }
> >
> > - if (branch_index - pc_index > 1)
> > + if (run_to_address.IsValid())
> > {
> > const bool is_internal = true;
> > - run_to_address =
> instructions->GetInstructionAtIndex(branch_index)->GetAddress();
> > m_next_branch_bp_sp =
> GetTarget().CreateBreakpoint(run_to_address, is_internal, false);
> > if (m_next_branch_bp_sp)
> > {
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lldb-commits mailing list
> > lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20151113/a4b3ccac/attachment.html>
More information about the lldb-commits
mailing list