================
@@ -235,18 +234,13 @@ Breakpoint *ReportRetriever::SetupBreakpoint(ModuleSP
module_sp,
if (!symbol->ValueIsAddress() || !symbol->GetAddressRef().IsValid())
return nullptr;
- Target &target = process_sp->GetTarget();
- addr_t symbol_address =
symbol->GetAddressRef().GetOpcodeLoadAddress(&target);
-
- if (symbol_address == LLDB_INVALID_ADDRESS)
- return nullptr;
-
+ const Address &address = symbol->GetAddressRef();
const bool internal = true;
const bool hardware = false;
Breakpoint *breakpoint =
process_sp->GetTarget()
- .CreateBreakpoint(symbol_address, internal, hardware)
+ .CreateBreakpoint(address, internal, hardware)
----------------
yln wrote:
Cleanup suggested by @jimingham here:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84583#issuecomment-1986590436
> you could set it by Address, in which case it would survive re-running, but
> instead it converts the Address to an addr_t - the most fragile way to set a
> breakpoint
So we are using the `CreateBreakpoint` overload that takes `Address` instead of
`addr_t` now and Jim mentioned that this survives re-running. Are we concerned
at all about this change in behavior? For example, could we get into a
situation where we keep adding superfluous breakpoints because the old ones
survive?
@jimingham @usama54321
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/94794
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
