DavidSpickett added a comment.
I'm missing some context here I think.
I assume the use case is that, for example, we don't want to be adding a bunch
of WASM specific DWARF operations to the generic operations. If those can live
in a WASM (the "vendor") plugin then we know where to look and they can use any
vendor specific knowledge to do their job.
Along the right lines? I think I saw some talk about this on a previous diff
but don't remember now.
================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Target/Platform.h:959
const FileSpecList *module_search_paths_ptr);
-
private:
----------------
stray change
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Expression/DWARFExpressionList.cpp:93
const DWARFExpression &expr = m_exprs.GetEntryRef(0).data;
- return expr.ContainsThreadLocalStorage();
+ return expr.ContainsThreadLocalStorage(*m_dwarf_cu);
}
----------------
I'm not sure that `m_dwarf_cu` is always non null. It might be in practice but
for example one use ends up in `UpdateValueTypeFromLocationDescription` which
checks that it is not null before use.
Maybe it is reasonable to assume it is never null (and if it is and you have
the time, a preparatory patch to make it a ref would be great).
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDWARF.h:343
+ ParseVendorDWARFOpcode(uint8_t op,
+ const lldb_private::DataExtractor &opcodes,
+ lldb::offset_t &offset,
----------------
Seems like clang-format missed a bit here.
================
Comment at: lldb/unittests/Expression/DWARFExpressionTest.cpp:571
+ }
+
+ // Report the skipped distance:
----------------
Is there not 3 more arguments to read off here? The `0x00 0x00 0x00` from above.
================
Comment at: lldb/unittests/Expression/DWARFExpressionTest.cpp:751-765
+ // Test that expression extensions can be evaluated, for example
+ // DW_OP_WASM_location which is not currently handled by DWARFExpression:
+ // DW_OP_WASM_location WASM_GLOBAL:0x03 index:u32
+ EXPECT_THAT_EXPECTED(Evaluate({DW_OP_WASM_location, 0x03, 0x04, 0x00, 0x00,
+ 0x00, DW_OP_stack_value},
+ dwo_module_sp, dwo_dwarf_unit),
+ llvm::HasValue(GetScalar(32, 42, false)));
----------------
Can you dedeupe this section of both tests? Appears to be the same.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137247/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137247
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
