jankratochvil added a comment. In D54670#1403642 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D54670#1403642>, @labath wrote:
> I am still worried about the divergence from llvm's dwarf reader here. I am still going to investigate your `DW_FORM_*` dispatching suggestion <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58330#1400847>. It looks too simple to work, maybe it is the right way forward. > the debug info can come from multiple sections? How come nobody else has this > problem? Because GDB does not need to return back to DWARF after it is parsed - but then for LLDB the multiple-sections dispatching could be done only for `user_id_t` > Why not have `get_debug_types_data_extractor()` instead? Because DataExtractor accesses always start at offset 0. > BTW, I don't see a `get_debug_info_offset()`. AFAIK, there's no requirement > that .debug_info has to come first in an object file. What would happen if > the order of the sections in the object file is reversed? It would fall back to the section-reading (instead of section-mmapping) less performing fallback in `get_debug_info_data()`. If there are any such files out there sure the code could be extended to handle both orders of `.debug_info` and `.debug_types` but personally I do not think it is worth the code complication given there is the fallback anyway. I can put a warning there for such case so that it would be easily noticed in the future - but then maybe one could already rather extend the code, any suggestions what to choose? Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54670/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54670 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
