eloparco added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/tools/lldb-vscode/lldb-vscode.cpp:2177
+ const auto bytes_offset = -instruction_offset * bytes_per_instruction;
+ auto start_addr = base_addr - bytes_offset;
+ const auto disassemble_bytes = instruction_count * bytes_per_instruction;
----------------
clayborg wrote:
> This will work if the min and max opcode byte size are the same, like for
> arm64, the min and max are 4. This won't work for x86 or arm32 in thumb mode.
> So when backing up, we need to do an address lookup on the address we think
> we want to go to, and then adjust the starting address accordingly. Something
> like:
>
> ```
> SBAddress start_sbaddr = (base_addr - bytes_offset, g_vsc.target);
> ```
> now we have a section offset address that can tell us more about what it is.
> We can find the SBFunction or SBSymbol for this address and use those to find
> the right instructions. This will allow us to correctly disassemble code
> bytes.
>
> We can also look at the section that the memory comes from and see what the
> section contains. If the section is data, then emit something like:
> ```
> 0x00001000 .byte 0x23
> 0x00001001 .byte 0x34
> ...
> ```
> To find the section type we can do:
> ```
> SBSection section = start_sbaddr.GetSection();
> if (section.IsValid() && section.GetSectionType() == lldb::eSectionTypeCode) {
> // Disassemble from a valid boundary
> } else {
> // Emit a byte or long at a time with ".byte 0xXX" or other ASM directive
> for binary data
> }
> ```
> We need to ensure we start disassembling on the correct instruction boundary
> as well as our math for "start_addr" might be in between actual opcode
> boundaries. If we are in a lldb::eSectionTypeCode, then we know we have
> instructions, and if we are not, then we can emit ".byte" or other binary
> data directives. So if we do have lldb::eSectionTypeCode as our section type,
> then we should have a function or symbol, and we can get instructions from
> those objects easily:
>
> ```
> if (section.IsValid() && section.GetSectionType() == lldb::eSectionTypeCode) {
> lldb::SBInstructionList instructions;
> lldb::SBFunction function = start_sbaddr.GetFunction();
> if (function.IsValid()) {
> instructions = function.GetInstructions(g_vsc.target);
> } else {
> symbol = start_sbaddr.GetSymbol();
> if (symbol.IsValid())
> instructions = symbol.GetInstructions(g_vsc.target);
> }
> const size_t num_instrs = instructions.GetSize();
> if (num_instrs > 0) {
> // we found instructions from a function or symbol and we need to
> // find the matching instruction that we want to start from by iterating
> // over the instructions and finding the right address
> size_t matching_idx = num_instrs; // Invalid index
> for (size_t i=0; i<num_instrs; ++i) {
> lldb::SBInstruction inst = instructions.GetInstructionAtIndex(i);
> if (inst.GetAddress().GetLoadAddress(g_vsc.target) >= start_addr) {
> matching_idx = i;
> break;
> }
> }
> if (matching_idx < num_instrs) {
> // Now we can print the instructions from [matching_idx, num_instrs)
> // then we need to repeat the search for the next function or symbol.
> // note there may be bytes between functions or symbols which we can
> disassemble
> // by calling _get_instructions_from_memory(...) but we must find the next
> // symbol or function boundary and get back on track
> }
>
> ```
Sorry, I should have provided a proper explanation.
I use the maximum instruction size as the "worst case". Basically, I need to
read a portion of memory but I do not know the start address and the size. For
the start address, if I want to read N instructions before `base_addr` I need
to read at least starting from `base_addr - N * max_instruction_size`: if all
instructions are of size `max_instruction_size` I will read exactly N
instructions; otherwise I will read more than N instructions and prune the
additional ones afterwards. Same for applies for the size.
Since `start_addr` is based on a "worst case", it may be an address in the
middle of an instruction. In that case, that first instruction will be
misinterpreted, but I think that is negligible.
The logic is similar to what is implemented in other VS Code extensions, like
https://github.com/vadimcn/vscode-lldb/blob/master/adapter/src/debug_session.rs#L1134.
Does it make sense?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140358/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140358
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
