jasonmolenda marked an inline comment as done.
jasonmolenda added a comment.
Thanks for looking this over Pavel.
================
Comment at:
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteRegisterContext.cpp:215
+ struct RegisterInfo *reginfo =
m_reg_info.GetRegisterInfoAtIndex(i);
+ if (reginfo->byte_offset < buffer_sp->GetByteSize()) {
+ m_reg_valid[i] = true;
----------------
labath wrote:
> Should this be something like `reginfo->byte_offset+reg_info->byte_size <
> ...` ?
Yeah, that was my first thought too, then I thought, SURELY we'll have the
correct # of bytes for complete registers, even if it's less registers than
expected. But that's maybe not a great assumption. I'll change it.
================
Comment at:
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteRegisterContext.cpp:215-220
+ if (reginfo->byte_offset + reginfo->byte_size
+ <= buffer_sp->GetByteSize()) {
+ m_reg_valid[i] = true;
+ } else {
+ m_reg_valid[i] = false;
+ }
----------------
labath wrote:
> maybe just `m_reg_valid[i] = reginfo->byte_offset + reginfo->byte_size <=
> buffer_sp->GetByteSize()`
I think I like the more verbose form, but I don't feel strongly about it. It
takes up more screen real estate but I think it's easier to understand at a
glance - purely a personal opinion. I'm sure they compile to the same code.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70417/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70417
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
