This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rG9abd8c1a4c38: [elf-core] Improve reading memory from core
file (authored by djtodoro).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939/new/
https://revi
djtodoro added a comment.
@labath Thanks for the review! I'll land this tomorrow.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists
labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
cool
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@l
djtodoro updated this revision to Diff 320483.
djtodoro added a comment.
- Test update
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939
Files:
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/elf-core/ProcessElfCore.cpp
lldb/test/API/functionalities/postmortem/el
djtodoro added a comment.
> Another option would be to ditch disassembling, and check this via memory
> reads, as that is what you are actually fixing
+1, nice! thanks!
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939
__
labath added a comment.
I think that's because lldb's dissassembler currently just stops when it
encounters an unknown/invalid instruction :(, so it doesn't even get to the
interesting part. If I skip over the random bytes I get:
(lldb) disassemble --start 0x400ff0 --end 0x40100c
0x400f
djtodoro added a comment.
> Regarding the test, would it be possible to reuse one of the existing core
> files? (The reason we have so few core tests is because we used to not allow
> checked in core files at all -- now we kinda do, but it's still not ideal.)
> I'm guessing you don't even need
labath added a comment.
The fact that the test suite passes is not too surprising since we have very
few core file tests. However, I agree that we should just remove this zero
filling completely.
Regarding the test, would it be possible to reuse one of the existing core
files? (The reason we h
djtodoro updated this revision to Diff 318464.
djtodoro added a comment.
nfc
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939
Files:
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/elf-core/ProcessElfCore.cpp
lldb/test/API/functionalities/postmortem/elf-core/Tes
djtodoro updated this revision to Diff 317873.
djtodoro edited the summary of this revision.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939
Files:
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/elf-core/ProcessElfCore.cpp
lldb/test/API/functionalities/postmorte
djtodoro added a comment.
(@labath Sorry for late response, I've been away from keyboard for some time.)
> Have you by any chance learned why are we zero-filling this buffer in the
> first place? Seems like an odd thing to do... Maybe we should just stop
> zero-filling completely?
Hmm... not s
labath added a comment.
Have you by any chance learned why are we zero-filling this buffer in the first
place? Seems like an odd thing to do... Maybe we should just stop zero-filling
completely?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93939/
djtodoro created this revision.
djtodoro added reviewers: labath, JDevlieghere.
djtodoro added a project: LLDB.
Herald added a subscriber: pengfei.
djtodoro requested review of this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits.
This patch tries to improve memory-read from core files (in order
13 matches
Mail list logo