Re: [lldb-dev] Making a new symbol provider

2016-03-01 Thread Greg Clayton via lldb-dev
On Mar 1, 2016, at 11:45 AM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > Alright I think i get it. Basically terminal entry means "everything from > this address onwards is not part of any function" Yes ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llv

Re: [lldb-dev] Making a new symbol provider

2016-03-01 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
Alright I think i get it. Basically terminal entry means "everything from this address onwards is not part of any function" On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:36 AM Greg Clayton wrote: > > > On Mar 1, 2016, at 11:30 AM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > > We do know the last line of a function. In the review i

Re: [lldb-dev] Making a new symbol provider

2016-03-01 Thread Greg Clayton via lldb-dev
> On Mar 1, 2016, at 11:30 AM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > We do know the last line of a function. In the review i posted, you can see > the condition where i set is_epilogue to true. That is the last line of a > function corresponding to the } (although the function may contain additional > by

Re: [lldb-dev] Making a new symbol provider

2016-03-01 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
We do know the last line of a function. In the review i posted, you can see the condition where i set is_epilogue to true. That is the last line of a function corresponding to the } (although the function may contain additional bytes, since that only refers to the first byte of the epilogue. But I

Re: [lldb-dev] Making a new symbol provider

2016-03-01 Thread Greg Clayton via lldb-dev
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:49 PM Zachary Turner wrote: > Those are addresses. Here's the situation I was encountering this on: > > // foo.h > #include "bar.h" > inline int f(int n) > { > return g(n) + 1; > } > > // bar.h > inl

Re: [lldb-dev] Making a new symbol provider

2016-02-29 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:49 PM Zachary Turner wrote: > Those are addresses. Here's the situation I was encountering this on: > > // foo.h > #include "bar.h" > inline int f(int n) > { > return g(n) + 1; > } > > // bar.h > inline int g(int n) > { > return n+1; > } > > // foo.cpp > #includ

Re: [lldb-dev] Making a new symbol provider

2016-02-29 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
Those are addresses. Here's the situation I was encountering this on: // foo.h #include "bar.h" inline int f(int n) { return g(n) + 1; } // bar.h inline int g(int n) { return n+1; } // foo.cpp #include "foo.h" int main(int argc, char** argv) { return f(argc); } PDB gives me back li

Re: [lldb-dev] Making a new symbol provider

2016-02-29 Thread Greg Clayton via lldb-dev
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 5:09 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > Suppose you've got two line sequences. > > First sequence: > 4198512 > 4198544 > 4198547 > 4198562 > > Second sequence: > 4198528 > 4198531 > 4198537 > 4198552 > > These two line sequences overlap, and will not be inserted correctly i

Re: [lldb-dev] Making a new symbol provider

2016-02-29 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
Suppose you've got two line sequences. First sequence: 4198512 4198544 4198547 4198562 Second sequence: 4198528 4198531 4198537 4198552 These two line sequences overlap, and will not be inserted correctly into a LineTable. This sounds like a bug to me, because as far as I can tell there is noth

Re: [lldb-dev] Making a new symbol provider

2016-02-12 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:35 PM Greg Clayton wrote: > > > 5. ParseCompileUnitLineTable. On the LineTable class you can add "line > sequences" or individual entries. What's the difference here? Is there > any disadvantage to adding every single line entry in the line table using > the InsertLin

Re: [lldb-dev] Making a new symbol provider

2016-02-12 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:41 AM Greg Clayton wrote: > > > On Feb 11, 2016, at 6:56 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:35 PM Greg Clayton wrote: > > > > > On Feb 11, 2016, at 3:41 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi,

Re: [lldb-dev] Making a new symbol provider

2016-02-12 Thread Greg Clayton via lldb-dev
> On Feb 11, 2016, at 6:56 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:35 PM Greg Clayton wrote: > > > On Feb 11, 2016, at 3:41 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev > > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I want to make a new symbol provider to teach LLDB to understand microsoft > > PDB

Re: [lldb-dev] Making a new symbol provider

2016-02-11 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:35 PM Greg Clayton wrote: > > > On Feb 11, 2016, at 3:41 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I want to make a new symbol provider to teach LLDB to understand > microsoft PDB files. I've been looking over the various sy

Re: [lldb-dev] Making a new symbol provider

2016-02-11 Thread Greg Clayton via lldb-dev
> On Feb 11, 2016, at 3:41 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev > wrote: > > Hi, > > I want to make a new symbol provider to teach LLDB to understand microsoft > PDB files. I've been looking over the various symbol APIs, and I have a few > questions. > > 1. Under what circumstances do I need

[lldb-dev] Making a new symbol provider

2016-02-11 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
Hi, I want to make a new symbol provider to teach LLDB to understand microsoft PDB files. I've been looking over the various symbol APIs, and I have a few questions. 1. Under what circumstances do I need a custom SymbolVendor? The way pdb works is that generally there is 1 file that contains al