labath added a comment. In D70840#1791292 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70840#1791292>, @mstorsjo wrote:
> And irrespectively if the ArchSpec vs Architecture design, can you (either of > you) comment on the updated form of the patch? The code still seems somewhat schizophrenic to me. :/ The line tables are fixed up super late, but DW_AT_low_pc is adjusted very early. The line table adjustment happens even after sorting, which means the fixup could alter the sort order. It probably wouldn't matter in practice, as everything would just get decremented by one, but it still seems like a bad design. And adjusting the low_pc so early will complicate the move to the llvm dwarf parser. I think I'd most prefer some middle ground where the fixup happens after the lowest extraction layers are finished, but before the data hits the "generic" code. It's possible that no such place exists right now, but it might be possible to create something with a bit of refactoring... CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70840/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70840 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
