clayborg added a comment. In D59235#1425443 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59235#1425443>, @zturner wrote:
> In D59235#1425436 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59235#1425436>, @clayborg wrote: > > > My main concern with the LLVM DWARF parser is all of the asserts in the > > code. If you attempt to use a DWARFDIE without first checking it for > > validity, it will crash on you instead of returning a good error or default > > value. That makes me really nervous as we shouldn't just crash the > > debugger. The switching over won't be too hard, just the fallout from the > > LLDB versions of the class that do error checking and return good > > error/default values and LLVM being very strict. > > > Sure, I'm prepared to deal all that appropriately. I don't plan to regress > LLDB's stability in the process. Sounds good. > That's why for now I'm just doing very small preliminary steps to get the two > interfaces to be closer to each other and simplify the problem space. We can > worry about the asserts and all of that when we actually start moving pieces > of LLDB to use LLVM's classes (which isn't in this patch). I look forward to seeing this transition. I was planning on working on that right before I left Apple, but I left and didn't have the time after starting a new job. I will be happy to help review any changes as I did a lot of cleanup in the LLVM DWARF parser in preparation for the transition, so we should be in good shape. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59235/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59235 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
