d relative
> offsets in DWARF.
>
> Not tried with llvm 4.0 or lld or gold.
>
>
> David Earlam
> Staff-Senior[Engineer]/Manager ? Software : Development Tools() {
> Qualcomm Technologies International, Ltd.
> .
>
> From: lldb-dev [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llv
r-section references and
> relative offsets in DWARF.
>
> Not tried with llvm 4.0 or lld or gold.
>
>
> David Earlam
> Staff-Senior[Engineer]/Manager ? Software : Development Tools() {
> Qualcomm Technologies International, Ltd.
> .
>
> From: lldb-dev [mailto:lld
am
> Staff-Senior[Engineer]/Manager ? Software : Development Tools() {
> Qualcomm Technologies International, Ltd.
> .
>
> From: lldb-dev [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
> James Henderson via lldb-dev
> Sent: 06 March 2017 13:51
> To: lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
&g
t: [lldb-dev] LLDB behaviour for GCed sections
Hi,
I’m currently investigating the behaviour of different debuggers when functions
have been stripped by the linker because they are unused. I tried looking at
the source code, but couldn’t really make enough sense of it to answer the
question. Wou
Hi,
I’m currently investigating the behaviour of different debuggers when
functions have been stripped by the linker because they are unused. I tried
looking at the source code, but couldn’t really make enough sense of it to
answer the question. Would someone be able to explain what LLDB’s behav
