jasonmolenda added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
lldb/tools/debugserver/source/MacOSX/arm64/DNBArchImplARM64.cpp:2026-2037
+ if (reg == gpr_pc)
+ value->value.uint64 = clear_pac_bits(
+ reinterpret_cast<uint64_t>(m_state.context.gpr.__opaque_pc));
+ else if (reg == gpr_lr)
+ value->value.uint64 = clear_pac_bits(
+ reinterpret_cast<uint64_t>(m_state.context.gpr.__opaque_lr));
+ else if (reg == gpr_sp)
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> jasonmolenda wrote:
> > JDevlieghere wrote:
> > > `reg` is a uint32_t so you could use a switch here:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > switch(reg) {
> > > case gpr_pc:
> > > ...
> > > }
> > > ```
> > I thought about that, but then I'd need a `break;` after each element and
> > it was one extra line. I don't have a real preference, and this was
> > shorter.
> If we are already micro-optimizing, I guess the resulting code would be
> shorter (and 100% UB-free) if it were
> ```
> uint64_t val = 0;
> switch(reg) {
> case gpr_pc:
> memcpy(&val, m_state.context.gpr.__opaque_pc);
> break;
> ...
> }
> value->value.uint64 = clear_pac_bits(val);
> ```
I don't have anything against using memcpy instead of the reinterpret_cast, but
I don't see it being any clearer (IMO), and it doesn't reduce the code
duplication - we still need separate lines for when the members are named
__opaque_ and when not. If anyone feels it's clearer to use a switch statement
and/or memcpy, I genuinely don't care either way, but I don't see it myself.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140067/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140067
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
