[gdb-remote] Move broadcasting logic down to GDBRemoteClientBase

Move the broadcasting support from GDBRemoteCommunication
to GDBRemoteClientBase since this is where it is actually used. Remove
GDB

[gdb-remote] Move broadcasting logic down to GDBRemoteClientBase

Move the broadcasting support from GDBRemoteCommunication
to GDBRemoteClientBase since this is where it is actually used. Remove
GDBRemoteCommunication and subclass constructor arguments left over
after Communication cleanup.

Sponsored by: The FreeBSD Foundation
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D133427

show more ...

[lldb] [gdb-remote] Use Communication::WriteAll() over Write()

Replace the uses of Communication::Write() with WriteAll() to avoid
partial writes. None of the call sites actually accounted for that

[lldb] [gdb-remote] Use Communication::WriteAll() over Write()

Replace the uses of Communication::Write() with WriteAll() to avoid
partial writes. None of the call sites actually accounted for that
possibility and even if it is unlikely to actually happen, there doesn't
seem to be any real harm from using WriteAll() instead.

Ideally, we'd remove Write() from the public API. However, that would
change the API of SBCommunication. The alternative would be to alias it
to WriteAll().

Sponsored by: The FreeBSD Foundation
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132395

show more ...

[lldb/gdb-remote] Ignore spurious ACK packets

Although I cannot find any mention of this in the specification, both
gdb and lldb agree on sending an initial + packet after establishing the
connectio

[lldb/gdb-remote] Ignore spurious ACK packets

Although I cannot find any mention of this in the specification, both
gdb and lldb agree on sending an initial + packet after establishing the
connection.

OTOH, gdbserver and lldb-server behavior is subtly different. While
lldb-server *expects* the initial ack, and drops the connection if it is
not received, gdbserver will just ignore a spurious ack at _any_ point
in the connection.

This patch changes lldb's behavior to match that of gdb. An ACK packet
is ignored at any point in the connection (except when expecting an ACK
packet, of course). This is inline with the "be strict in what you
generate, and lenient in what you accept" philosophy, and also enables
us to remove some special cases from the server code. I've extended the
same handling to NAK (-) packets, mainly because I don't see a reason to
treat them differently here.

(The background here is that we had a stub which was sending spurious
+ packets. This bug has since been fixed, but I think this change makes
sense nonetheless.)

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114520

show more ...

[lldb][NFC] Fix all formatting errors in .cpp file headers

Summary:
A *.cpp file header in LLDB (and in LLDB) should like this:
```
//===-- TestUtilities.cpp ----------------------------------------

[lldb][NFC] Fix all formatting errors in .cpp file headers

Summary:
A *.cpp file header in LLDB (and in LLDB) should like this:
```
//===-- TestUtilities.cpp -------------------------------------------------===//
```
However in LLDB most of our source files have arbitrary changes to this format and
these changes are spreading through LLDB as folks usually just use the existing
source files as templates for their new files (most notably the unnecessary
editor language indicator `-*- C++ -*-` is spreading and in every review
someone is pointing out that this is wrong, resulting in people pointing out that this
is done in the same way in other files).

This patch removes most of these inconsistencies including the editor language indicators,
all the different missing/additional '-' characters, files that center the file name, missing
trailing `===//` (mostly caused by clang-format breaking the line).

Reviewers: aprantl, espindola, jfb, shafik, JDevlieghere

Reviewed By: JDevlieghere

Subscribers: dexonsmith, wuzish, emaste, sdardis, nemanjai, kbarton, MaskRay, atanasyan, arphaman, jfb, abidh, jsji, JDevlieghere, usaxena95, lldb-commits

Tags: #lldb

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73258

show more ...

Update the file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the ne

Update the file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.

Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.

llvm-svn: 351636

show more ...

Add GDB remote packet reproducer.

llvm-svn: 346780

gdb-remote: Fix checksum verification for messages with escape chars

Summary:
We've had a mismatch in the checksum computation between the sender and
receiver. The sender computed the payload checks

gdb-remote: Fix checksum verification for messages with escape chars

Summary:
We've had a mismatch in the checksum computation between the sender and
receiver. The sender computed the payload checksum using the wire
encoding of the packet, while the receiver did this after expanding
un-escaping and expanding run-length-encoded sequences. This resulted in
communication breakdown if packets using these feature were sent in the
ack mode.

Normally, this did not cause any issues since the only packet we send in
the ack-mode is the QStartNoAckMode packet, but I ran into this when
debugging the lldb-server tests which (for better or worse) don't use
this mode.

According to the gdb-remote documentation "The two-digit checksum is computed as
the modulo 256 sum of all characters between the leading ‘$’ and the
trailing ‘#’", it seems that our sender is doing the right thing here.
Therefore, I fix the receiver the match the sender behavior and add a
test.

With this bug fixed, we can see that lldb-server is sending a stop-reply
after receiving the "k" in the same way as debugserver does (but we
weren't detecting this because at that point the connection was dead
already). I fix that expectation as well.

Reviewers: clayborg, jasonmolenda

Subscribers: mgorny, lldb-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44922

llvm-svn: 328693

show more ...