jasonmolenda wrote:
I haven't tested it (or even tried to compile it, lol) but I think this loop
might be expressable as simply
```
MemoryRegionInfo region_info;
while (process_sp->GetMemoryRegionInfo(ret, region_info) == err.Success() &&
region_info.GetRange().GetRangeEnd() - 1 < end_of_memory) {
// Don't ever choose a memory region starting at address 0,
// it will conflict with programs that deference null pointers.
if (ret == 0) {
ret = region_info.GetRange().GetRangeEnd();
continue;
}
// A memory region that is inaccessible, and large enough, is a good
// choice.
if (region_info.GetReadable() != MemoryRegionInfo::OptionalBool::eNo &&
region_info.GetWritable() != MemoryRegionInfo::OptionalBool::eNo &&
region_info.GetExecutable() != MemoryRegionInfo::OptionalBool::eNo) {
if (ret + size < region_info.GetRange().GetRangeEnd()) {
return ret;
}
}
// Get the next region.
ret = region_info.GetRange().GetRangeEnd();
}
```
I dropped two behaviors here - one is that it would emit a unique assert if
qMemoryRegionInfo worked once, but failed for a different address. The second
is that I think the old code would try to combine consecutive memory regions to
make one block large enough to satisfy the size requirement (not sure it was
doing this correctly).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99045
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
