probinson 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. > > 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). A long term plan of moving LLVM's parser away from asserts and toward error reporting on bad input would also make the binutils that try to read DWARF more robust and useful for trying to diagnose bad object files. I'm all for it. 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
