jgorbe added a comment.
I'm going to go ahead and commit this given that I have just made the last
suggested modification and the patch has already been up for review without
further comments for a long while (sorry for the late replies, work keeps
getting in the way of work).
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFUnit.cpp:808-809
+ if (cu_index && (header.m_unit_type == llvm::dwarf::DW_UT_compile ||
+ header.m_unit_type == llvm::dwarf::DW_UT_split_compile)) {
+ header.m_index_entry = cu_index->getFromOffset(header.m_offset);
----------------
labath wrote:
> jgorbe wrote:
> > labath wrote:
> > > I guess this could be `header.IsTypeUnit()` (and
> > > `!header.IsTypeUnit())`)...
> > But `!header.IsTypeUnit` would also treat DW_UT_partial and DW_UT_skeleton
> > as compile units, right?
> That's true, but can either of those units legitimately appear in a dwp file?
> Even if they do appear for whatever reason, it wouldn't make any sense to use
> them without an index entry, and it would be (somewhat) more reasonable to
> put them in the cu index.
>
> I took this idea from the equivalent llvm code:
> <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/DebugInfo/DWARF/DWARFUnit.cpp#L81>
Good point. Changed.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D96194/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D96194
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
