sas added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D19603#908130, @clayborg wrote:
> Does this need some ARM support where we strip bit zero in case the entry
> point is Thumb?
Good question. Somehow we never had any issue with this but I don't remember
explicitly checking for difference with t
clayborg added a comment.
Does this need some ARM support where we strip bit zero in case the entry point
is Thumb?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D19603
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/list
clayborg added a comment.
Anyone still care about this? It would be nice to move it along or abandon it.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D19603
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-co
I'm currently busy with other stuff but I'll get back to this soon. I
think we have a different version of this internally which seems to
work properly, so I'll make sure everything is clean and re-upload a
better version.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Greg Clayton via Phabricator
wrote:
> cl
clayborg added a comment.
Any progress on this? Read the previous comments and see if what I said makes
sense.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D19603
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
clayborg added a comment.
Example code to resolve this would be:
Address entry_addr = objfile->GetEntryPointAddress();
lldb::addr_t entry_load_addr = entry_addr.GetLoadAddress(target);
if (entry_load_addr != LLDB_INVALID_ADDRESS)
{
// We were able to resolve the address as the
clayborg added a comment.
Let me clarify a few things. A "file address" is an address (lldb::addr_t) that
gets translated into a section + offset address (lldb_private::Address which
contains a lldb_private::Section + offset. Any addresses coming from ObjectFile
parsers must be made into lldb_p
zturner added a comment.
image base is the address that the process should be loaded to in memory. But
this is only a hint anyway, and a process might end up being loaded at a
different address. So now that I think about it, this is wrong no matter what
because even if you did want a virtual
clayborg added a comment.
"offset" here must be a file address, or a virtual address as the file's
sections know it. So if you take "offset" and look it up in the sections for
the COFF file, it should be a correct address. I don't know what
"m_coff_header_opt.image_base" is, but as along as ent
sas added a comment.
@zturner, you might be right, I might have to change the code I have to load
the initial executable's `Module` and use an offset different than 0 there.
I'll wait to see what @clayborg says.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19603
___
zturner added a reviewer: clayborg.
zturner added a comment.
+greg. I thought I remember Greg saying that that offsets were supposed to be
RVAs, not VAs. Am I wrong here?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19603
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@l
sas created this revision.
sas added a reviewer: zturner.
sas added a subscriber: lldb-commits.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19603
Files:
source/Plugins/ObjectFile/PECOFF/ObjectFilePECOFF.cpp
Index: source/Plugins/ObjectFile/PECOFF/ObjectFilePECOFF.cpp
=
12 matches
Mail list logo
