https://github.com/jimingham commented:
This is much nicer looking!
I had a couple small comments about apportioning duties between the
ValueObjectVTable::Update and the GetVTableInfo in the comments.
It doesn't look like you handled corrupted tables yet? Are you still intending
to do that?
Another thing it might be good to test - though from what you've done it should
indeed work is if I have:
BaseClass Foo my_foo = FirstChildOfFoo();
// Stop after this line and do `vtbl =
frame.FindVariable("my_foo").GetVTable()` and check the vtable has the right
functions for FirstChildOfFoo()
my_foo = SecondChildOfFoo();
// Stop after this line and check the `vtbl` variable again, it should now have
the functions for SecondChildOfFoo...
That will make sure both that we notice the change in the parent & update the
vtable appropriately, and that we don't mess up the memory management, such
that holding onto just the vtable child doesn't keep the whole tree valid.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67599
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
