zturner added a comment. In D59235#1425436 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59235#1425436>, @clayborg wrote:
> My main concern with the LLVM DWARF parser is all of the asserts in the code. > If you attempt to use a DWARFDIE without first checking it for validity, it > will crash on you instead of returning a good error or default value. That > makes me really nervous as we shouldn't just crash the debugger. The > switching over won't be too hard, just the fallout from the LLDB versions of > the class that do error checking and return good error/default values and > LLVM being very strict. Sure, I'm prepared to deal all that appropriately. I don't plan to regress LLDB's stability in the process. That's why for now I'm just doing very small preliminary steps to get the two interfaces to be closer to each other and simplify the problem space. We can worry about the asserts and all of that when we actually start moving pieces of LLDB to use LLVM's classes (which isn't in this patch). CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59235/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59235 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
