mstorsjo marked 2 inline comments as done.
mstorsjo added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Expression/DWARFExpression.h:142
+ std::pair<lldb::addr_t, lldb::addr_t> GetLocationListAddresses() const;
+
----------------
clayborg wrote:
> Might be better as two functions? One to get the CU address and func address:
>
> ```
> lldb_private::Address GetCUAddress();
> lldb_private::Address GetFuncAddress();
> ```
>
> The DWARFExpression has a Module when the location comes from DWARF and this
> can be used to get the arch and sanitize the address by calling
> GetOpcodeLoadAddress on the address before returning it.
Oh, if we'd make DWARFExpression::SetLocationListAddresses do the sanitization,
then we don't need to add the getters at all - that'd save a lot of extra
changes as well.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFDebugInfoEntry.cpp:397-400
+ for (size_t i = 0; i < ranges.GetSize(); i++) {
+ DWARFRangeList::Entry *entry = ranges.GetMutableEntryAtIndex(i);
+ entry->base = arch.GetOpcodeLoadAddress(entry->base);
+ }
----------------
clayborg wrote:
> What about asking the DWARFRangeList to fix all code addresses? This code
> would become:
>
> ```
> ranges.GetOpcodeAddresses(arch);
> ```
>
>
Yeah, I was thinking of some refactoring like that. I would have gone for a
method that mutates the current range, e.g. `ranges.FixOpcodeAddresses(arch)`,
but would you prefer it to be something that returns a new sanitized range
instead?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70840/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70840
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
