similar to: lldb -c corefile get segmentation fault on centos7

I'm trying to build llvm and clang release_34 git branch on ubuntu 13.04, using cmake, and i'm getting numerous errors from lldb: [ 83%] Building CXX object tools/lldb/source/Core/CMakeFiles/lldbCore.dir/Address.cpp.o /home/sam/src/llvm/tools/lldb/source/Expression/ClangExpressionParser.cpp: In function ‘clang::FrontendAction* CreateFrontendBaseAction(clang::CompilerInstance&)’:

Hi, While dogfooding our lldb based IDE on Linux, I am seeing a lot of variable evaluation errors related to DW_TAG_member which prevents us from release the IDE. Can anyone help to confirm if they are known issues? If not, any information you need to troubleshoot this issue? Here is one example: (lldb) fr v *error: biggrep_master_server_async 0x10b9a91a: DW_TAG_member '_M_pod_data'

If you're going to use clang built binaries with lldb, you'll want to pass -fstandalone-debug - this is the default on platforms where lldb is the primary debugger (Darwin and freebsd) Not sure if that is the problem you are seeing, but will be a problem sooner or later On Mar 26, 2016 4:16 PM, "Jeffrey Tan via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, >

Thanks David. I meant to send to lldb maillist, but glad to hear response here. Our binary is built from gcc: String dump of section '.comment': [ 1] GCC: (GNU) 4.9.x-google 20150123 (prerelease) Is there any similar flags we should use? By doing "strings -a [binary] | grep -i gcc", I found the following flags being used: GNU C++ 4.9.x-google 20150123 (prerelease)

So, when performing expression evaluation, lldb trips over an assert in clang/lib/AST/RecordLayoutBuilder because ExternalFieldOffsets doesn't contain a FieldDecl that updateExternalFieldOffset expected. I found that the assert occurs when both static and non-static member variables are present. For instance, with the following, the lldb command 'expr my_test.length()' does not

FYI, this turned out to be an error of omission in LLDB in SymbolFileDWARF, because the case of a non-defining external (i.e. a static member variable) wasn't being handled with a variable lookup to dig up the location. I'll put a patch together for lldb-commits, - Ashok From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Thirumurthi, Ashok

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Jeffrey Tan <jeffrey.fudan at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks David. I meant to send to lldb maillist, but glad to hear response > here. > > Our binary is built from gcc: > String dump of section '.comment': > [ 1] GCC: (GNU) 4.9.x-google 20150123 (prerelease) > > Is there any similar flags we should use? > If it's

Dear, I would like build lldb on linux but i fail, (thanks for any help): 1/ get llvm3.0 2/ get clang.3.0 and put it into llvm/tools/ 3/ checkout lldb rev 144573 put into llvm/tools/ build --------------------------------- $ ./configure --disable-assertions \ --enable-debug-runtime \ --enable-jit \ --enable-libffi \ --enable-shared $ make REQUIRES_RTTI=1 VERBOSE=1

Dan Gohman wrote: > There certainly are wishlist items for TableGen and TableGen-based > instruction descriptions, though I don't know of an official list. > Offhand, > a few things that come to mind are the ability to handle nodes with > multiple results, Is there an official workaround, BTW? - Volodya

Hello list, I try to do an automated network installation of centos 5.2, following the redat documentation at http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/sysadmin-guide/pt-install-info.html However, when installing I get promptet for various things, like which network interface I would like to use for installation, or the location of the install medium. But thats not what I

oh, awesome. Were you using type units? (I imagine that'd make the situation worse - since the way clang emits DWARF for a type with a member function template implicit specialization is to emit the type unit without any mention of this, and to emit the implicit specialization declaration into the stub type in the CU (that references the type unit)) Without type units I'd be pretty

To elaborate a bit more on the issue that is detailed in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL260308: There are many clang AST contexts that are used in LLDB: - one for each lldb_private::Module that contains type definitions as we know them in the module and its symbol vendor - one for each expression - one for results of expressions in the lldb_private::Target As we run expressions we end up copying

Hi, On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: > On 16 January 2016 at 20:21, Ismail Donmez <ismail at i10z.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: >>>> I am trying to enable this on openSUSE but it seems to break >>>> standalone lldb (note that we don't ship static

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:43:35PM -0800, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > This leads to a number of problems in LLVM: > > - we have a bunch of duplication > > - we have confusion about what a triple is (normalized or not) > > - no good way to tell if a triple is normalized > > - no good, centralized way to reason about

On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote: >> >> On the other hand, if "Byte Order" makes sense to include, should >> other parts of targetdata be included? Pointer size seems the next >> most desirable -- endianness and pointer size would be sufficient for >> many elf tools, for example. However, the other parts of >> targetdata could

> But where is the flat set? Maybe I can debug and check what is going on. The MCInstrDesc are in a table in lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCGenInstrInfo.inc of your build directory. > Some additional information: > > MCInst opcode: 0x7cb > Decode Index: 0x1e I had assumed this would have dissembled to '// Inst #234 = BC' which does have the branch flag set, but I think that

The `isBranch` flag is already set on the branch instructions. Furthermore, we do use the `isBranch()` query in a few places in the PPC back end, so this does work. Perhaps there's something specific about the lldb usage? Is it somehow possible that the `isBranch()` query is called on the wrong instruction? Would you be able to provide a test case that reproduces the issue? On Thu, Nov 30,

On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > This leads to a number of problems in LLVM: > - we have a bunch of duplication > - we have confusion about what a triple is (normalized or not) > - no good way to tell if a triple is normalized > - no good, centralized way to reason about which triples are allowed and valid > - the MC assembler has to link in the entire X86

Hi, I have rewritten the patches I submitted earlier today for the CVS HEAD. Some of the changes were already committed months ago. On 2007/03/15 12:30, Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote: > That's ok, but I'm not sure about bsearch_insert_pos(). It's the way it > is mostly because I wanted to keep bsearch() API. If it can't return > void * then maybe it could be

... to be more precise in naming, and also to match Linux. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> --- 2009-07-10.orig/xen/arch/ia64/linux-xen/perfmon.c 2009-05-27 13:54:05.000000000 +0200 +++ 2009-07-10/xen/arch/ia64/linux-xen/perfmon.c 2009-07-15 10:02:08.000000000 +0200 @@ -7313,7 +7313,7 @@ xenpfm_context_create(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(p goto out; /* XXX fmt */ -