- User Since
- Nov 12 2014, 1:58 PM (231 w, 2 d)
Thu, Apr 18
Wed, Apr 17
Tue, Apr 16
OK, on it.
Sat, Apr 13
Add an unittest maybe? otherwise, seems to match the ISA so LGTM
Thu, Apr 11
I'm not necessarily sure I like this. It's simply spreading in a general framework a concept that shouldn't exist to begin with. I'd rather remove forced constant from SCCP, even though it might result in us losing some optimization power.
Fri, Apr 5
Thu, Apr 4
I think this is good regardless for readability, but I would really appreciate if we can collect some numbers to see how effective this change actually is.
Tue, Apr 2
Mon, Apr 1
LGTM. Med, what do you think?
Fri, Mar 29
Thu, Mar 28
My (maybe unpopolar) opinion on the subject is that "soft assertions" are a way to cleanse your conscience of guilt, but they don't work really well in practice.
When I started working on lldb, I was a fairly strong proponent of assertions everywhere. My view changed somewhat radically over the course of the past 18 months, and I would like to summarize some points here.
This looks correct to me, but I'm not extremely familiar either, so I'd wait for @labath to sign off.
Wed, Mar 27
$ git llvm push Pushing 3 commits: d3e193e68a7 [ObjectFileMachO] Disable memory caching for savecore. 10502683510 [ObjectFileMachO] Remove another debugging aid. a619d7b69b9 [Process] Reorder declarations and document ReadMemoryFromInferior. Sending lldb/trunk/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/Mach-O/ObjectFileMachO.cpp Transmitting file data .done Committing transaction... Committed revision 357134. Committed d3e193e68a7 to svn. Sending lldb/trunk/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/Mach-O/ObjectFileMachO.cpp Transmitting file data .done Committing transaction... Committed revision 357135. Committed 10502683510 to svn. Sending lldb/trunk/include/lldb/Target/Process.h Transmitting file data .done Committing transaction... Committed revision 357136. Committed a619d7b69b9 to svn.
Tue, Mar 26
Mon, Mar 25
Fri, Mar 22
Thu, Mar 21
LGTM, just clang format main.cpp before committing.
This looks good to me as long as it doesn't break check-lldb (and from I quick look at the patch I doubt it does). Thanks for helping with this!
Mar 20 2019
Thanks for your interest in the subject of Python! I converted everything I was able to find looking at our test suite, it seems that we lack coverage for these scripts.
Did you end up testing them with both py 2 and py 3 or just applied a tool on them?