labath added a comment.
Regardless of the future of the syscall approach, I think limiting ourselves to
external mmap symbols is a good idea. And if it fixes your problem -- great.
It would be good to have a test for that, though. Maybe something like this
would do?
static void *mmap() { return (void *)47; }
int call_me() { return 42; }
int main() {
mmap();
return call_me();
}
right now, I am unable to evaluate `call_me()` with lldb. I guess your patch
should make that possible?
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Utility/InferiorCallPOSIX.cpp:54
+ if (sc_list.GetContextAtIndex(i, sc) &&
+ (sc.symbol->IsExternal() || sc.symbol->IsWeak())) {
const uint32_t range_scope =
----------------
clayborg wrote:
> aadsm wrote:
> > clayborg wrote:
> > > Why are we checking "IsWeak()" here?
> > A weak symbol is also an external symbol, but it's weak in the sense that
> > another external symbol with the same name will take precedence over it (as
> > far as I understood).
> I think we only need to check for external here. Any weak symbol will also
> need to be external, but if it isn't we don't want that symbol.
Your understanding is correct, at least at the object file level -- I'm not
sure whether `IsWeak()` implies `IsExternal()` inside lldb. However, I would
actually argue for removal of IsWeak() for a different reason -- any weak
definition of mmap is not going to be used by the process since libc already
has a strong definition of that symbol.
If we really end up in a situation where we only have a weak mmap symbol
around, then this is probably a sufficiently strange setup that we don't want
to be randomly calling that function.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87868/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87868
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
