clayborg marked an inline comment as done. clayborg added inline comments.
================ Comment at: source/Plugins/Process/minidump/ProcessMinidump.cpp:401 + basename_module_spec.GetUUID().Clear(); + basename_module_spec.GetFileSpec().GetDirectory().Clear(); + module_sp = GetTarget().GetSharedModule(basename_module_spec, &error); ---------------- labath wrote: > clayborg wrote: > > labath wrote: > > > What will happen if you just delete this line? Based on my experiments, I > > > believe we should still end up looking through the exec-search-paths > > > list. However, the test does not seem to be modifying this setting, so > > > it's not clear to me how it is even finding the binary in the first > > > place. What's the mechanism you're relying on for the lookup in the test? > > It doesn't work without clearing the fullpath here and I didn't want to > > modify the current behavior of the exec search paths in here just in case > > it would affect others that were depending on a certain behavior. > Ok, I don't think we have to block on that, but I'd still like to understand > how the files are found in the first place. Right now, I don't understand it > because: > a) they are not in exec-search-path > b) (I think) they are not in CWD > So the fact that they are found may be accidental and prone to breakage. I added the build directory to the "settings set target.exec-search-paths" in the tests in case this changes in the future. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D60001/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D60001 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
