[lldb-dev] DWARF v5 unit headers

[Pavel Labath via lldb-dev]

Thanks for the heads up Paul. I've tried your change on linux, and I don't
see any regressions, so it should be safe to land.

Regarding the test failures you were seeing: what is the system you were
testing this on? If it is linux, could you send me the list of failures --
I'd be interested in getting them sorted out.

regards,
pavel



On 28 February 2017 at 11:45, Tamas Berghammer via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> As far as I know the only dwarf v5 functionality currently implemented in
> LLDB is the split dwarf support so I don't expect it to work with the new
> dwarf v5 data but as long as clang emits dwarf v4 (or older) by default it
> shouldn't cause any immediate problem with the test suite (we will still
> have to teach LLDB to handle dwarf v5).
>
> For the future changes, when you start to emit the new dwarf v5 tag and
> form values instead of the current GNU extension tag and form values for
> split dwarf and for the related new data form-s we will have to teach LLDB
> to understand them (currently we expect only the GNU versions) so a heads
> up for that change would be appreciated. Other then this I expect no issue
> regarding the addition of dwarf v5 support for LLDB.
>
> Tamas
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:25 AM Robinson, Paul via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm planning to commit a patch (http://reviews.llvm.org/D30206) which
>> will
>> cause Clang/LLVM to emit correct unit headers if you ask for version 5.
>> I've run the lldb tests and I *think* I pointed to my modified Clang
>> correctly (cmake with -DLLDB_TEST_COMPILER=/my/clang) and AFAICT it does
>> not introduce new problems.
>> I saw 3 Failure and 12 Error with or without the patch.
>> (One Expected Failure seems to have become an Unexpected Success. Haven't
>> tried to decipher logs to figure out which one yet.)
>>
>> If anybody can predict a problem with my patch, please let me know by
>> noon Pacific time (2000 GMT) tomorrow (28th).
>>
>> We're going to be doing more work implementing various bits of DWARF v5
>> in the coming months.  If anybody thinks they can predict that there are
>> particular bits that would be especially problematic for LLDB, it would
>> be useful to know up front which bits those are.
>>
>> Thanks
>> --paulr
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lldb-dev mailing list
>> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20170228/49a9ad80/attachment.html>