clayborg added a comment. In D63540#1556989 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63540#1556989>, @labath wrote:
> In D63540#1550858 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63540#1550858>, @clayborg wrote: > > > So I am fine with symbols having zero size being in the symbol table. I > > would be fine not changing anything in the sorting and leaving some symbols > > with zero size, we just need to fix: > > > > Symbol *Symtab::FindSymbolAtFileAddress(addr_t file_addr); > > > > > > To ignore zero sized symbols when it finds them _if_ there is another > > symbol that has a size for that address. Wouldn't that fix the issue here? > > > You are assuming here that the symbols have size zero at the time we are > performing the lookup. If I understand correctly what is going on, the > problem here is that the code munging the symbol table (InitAddressIndexes), > will set these symbols to have non-zero size. This is what this patch is > trying to avoid. I am saying to leave symbols with zero size as is _if_ there is another symbol that does have a valid size with the same start address. > The reason we are fiddling with the size of the symbols is because there are > valid instances of symbols not having a size (usually coming from > hand-written assembly, where one just doesn't bother to add the .size > directive). However, it certainly seems like we shouldn't be doing that if > there is another symbol at the same address, and this symbol has the size set > correctly... Exactly. The best solution in my mind is: - leave all symbols with sizes as is - only set a symbol size if there is no other symbol at that address that didn't originally have a size - maybe leave zero sizes symbols out of the lookup map if they have no sizes after doing the two steps above Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D63540/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D63540 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
