jimingham wrote: > @jimingham, thanks for the review and feedback on how to improve the code. > Are you okay with us addressing this in a follow-up? > > > do you know why it was done this way? > > I don't think we do. I think we just copied what was done in the old ASan > plugin. My guess for the original code is that there was no specific reason > other than "it worked". I definitely want to follow your guidance and improve > this if it has benefits (and it seems easy to do). > > > survives rebuilds > > I think we are fine for rebuilds. The module we are setting the breakpoint in > is the ASan runtime, which doesn't get rebuilt.
Unless you happen to be working on the asan runtime... > > > This came up because you could (if this weren't done so oddly) handle this > > by having a list of candidate functions, and make a single breakpoint with > > all those names... > > @usama54321 please add a FIXME/TODO in the code and file a radar to improve > this (you can assign it to me) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84583 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
