clayborg added a comment. In D112058#3074618 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112058#3074618>, @labath wrote:
> In D112058#3073451 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112058#3073451>, @clayborg > wrote: > >> Looks good. Do we need a follow up patch to avoid creating functions that >> should have been stripped? > > I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Are you referring to the fact > that `SymbolFileDWARF::ResolveFunction` creates an `lldb_private::Function`, > which it does not add the to result SymbolContextList (instead of not > creating the object in the first place? > > If yes, then that sounds like a good idea. I don't know if this has more > user-facing implications, but I was definitely puzzled by the fact that the > stripped function still showed up in "image dump symfile". I'll see what can > be done about that. Yeah, that is what I was talking about. I think if we modify SymbolFileDWARF::ParseFunction() that would be the easiest to quickly get the ranges for the DW_TAG_subprogram and avoid calling DWARFASTParser::ParseFunctionFromDWARF() if the low PC is less than m_first_code_address we can avoid bloat in the ASTs and keep our memory footprint down in the LLDB process. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D112058/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D112058 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
