labath added a comment. Seems reasonable, but could use a test case, though I'm not sure what would be the best way to approach that. I suppose one could dump the index of one of these dwo-less files, and then make sure it's contents are right (empty?).
The m_dwo_id change also looks like its fixing a bug where we could end up mistakenly associating a regular unit (from the main exe file) with a split unit from a dwp file if that split unit happens to have a dwo id of zero. That might be another test vector. ================ Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFUnit.h:339 /// Value of DW_AT_GNU_dwo_id (v4) or dwo_id from CU header (v5). - uint64_t m_dwo_id; + llvm::Optional<uint64_t> m_dwo_id; ---------------- What's the relationship of this field and the m_is_dwo flag? Do we need both? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131437/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131437 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
