jasonmolenda added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/source/API/SBProcess.cpp:1260-1261 + return process_sp->GetHighmemDataAddressMask(); + case eMaskTypeAny: + return process_sp->GetDataAddressMask(); + } ---------------- jasonmolenda wrote: > clayborg wrote: > > Any reason we actually have a case for eMaskTypeAny? What makes this useful? > We have 4 different masks because of Linux's design, and because I have an > internal customer doing different page table layouts for high & low memory in > the same process (sigh), but realistically 99% of our programs are going to > have the same mask for all 4 types. Making an SB API user choose which mask > they want of the four makes it harder to use, imo. The folks doing genuinely > unusual things, like the internal customer I have using high & low memory > with different page table setups, can jump through the hoops of getting the > different masks. Just to be clear: I expect any SB API user who is using these is always going to call `SBProcess::SetAddressMask(lldb.eMaskTypeAll, mask)` and `SBProcess::GetAddressMask(lldb.eMaskTypeAny)`. Maybe some day we'll support a target where code & data masks are necessarily different and this simplification will be a problem for SB API users, but today I think they are fine with doing simply this. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D155905/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D155905 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
