labath added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/ProcessGDBRemote.cpp:4357
assert(reg_info.byte_size != 0);
registers.push_back(reg_info);
----------------
omjavaid wrote:
> labath wrote:
> > mgorny wrote:
> > > omjavaid wrote:
> > > > mgorny wrote:
> > > > > omjavaid wrote:
> > > > > > @mgorny the assert already exists but then we also want to allow
> > > > > > bit sized registers although they ll be viewed as byte length for
> > > > > > now.
> > > > > Ah, right. I suppose you could skip zero-byte registers though. That
> > > > > should amend the assert with better release behavior.
> > > > on a second thought, I dont see a zero sized register being sent by
> > > > stub as a big enough reason to abort the whole debug session unless its
> > > > one of GPRs. May be we skip the assert altogether and replace it with
> > > > an error message.
> > > > What do you think?
> > > Yes, you are correct. Probably `LLDB_LOG` would go in line with how we
> > > handle these things.
> > Yeah, I don't think crashing is a good response to the stub sending us
> > nonsensical register definitions. Though that seems like a separate issue..
> LLDB_LOG will hide message from user unless log is enabled. I think user must
> be notified that register is zero sized and thats why you wont be able to
> see it in register read. Similar to the way we notify user about unhandled
> register attibutes like "save-restore".
BTW, I came very close to deleting that printf when I was touching this code
last month.
FWIW, my hierarchy is:
user-facing warning (though I don't know how would that be implemented here) >>
log entry >> nothing >> raw printf
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D111131/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D111131
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
