[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D75750: [lldb] integrate debuginfod

Wed Mar 25 14:38:48 PDT 2020

jingham added a reviewer: clayborg.
jingham added a comment.

Greg originally designed the macOS equivalent of this, so I've added him.

I totally agree that you should only do wide searches for source files when there's no way to get a narrower context.  Even "source list" could use the current thread & frame as a start context, and only fall back to a full search when that fails.  In a big project with many shlibs, you might have multiple files of the same name, but if someone specifies foo.cpp while stopped in a method of libMyLib.dylib, they probably do mean the one in libMyLib.dylib, if it exists...

I'm not terribly happy with the way the module-level source-file remapping interacts with debug info.  It overrides the source-map without a way to undo that.  The dSYM's that Apple uses internally have module-level source remapping in them that point to some NFS mounted directory.  We've had problems where somebody has copied over one of these dSYM's and the associated sources, but doesn't want to remote mount the directories that host the sources.  The only way to point lldb at those is to either copy them over to a directory structure that matches the remote path, or edit the dSYM to remove the source  remapping.  That's pretty annoying.

On the other hand, I don't think we should show the build locations (or at least not as a primary thing) for source files that have come from debuginfod or from another module level remapping.  That's confusing to anyone who wants to open the file in some other way (for instance if you wanted to hand the file off to an external editor.)  If we a way to get at both pieces of information, the `source info` command could be used to show the "debug info path" and the "local path" for a given source file.  We might want some API (on SBFileSpec?) to get the original path - that would actually be useful when trying to figure out what you should use for a target.source-map.  But if we have a local copy of the file you need to be able to get to that path.

The test does seem like it would be much better as a Python test.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750