[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D17363: Add SymbolFilePDB with basic support for line tables.

[Zachary Turner via lldb-commits]

Thanks!  I think I've got a handle on it.  I'll upload another patch this
week hopefully.

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:30 AM Greg Clayton <clayborg at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Feb 26, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, so back to check_inlines.  I realized after I hit send that the
> explanation I had written out is exactly what I thought I had to do for
> check_inlines == true.
> >
> > I guess a concrete example would make it clearer.  If I have this code:
> >
> > // foo.cpp
> > #include "foo.h"
> >
> > int main(int argc, char **argv) { return 0; }
> >
> >
> > And I run this C++ code:
> >
> > // After this, sc_list should have 1 entry.
> > ResolveSymbolContext("foo.h", 0, true, eSymbolContextCompUnit, sc_list);
> >
>
> 1 entry yes.
>
> > // After this, sc_list should have how many entries?  1 or 0?
> > ResolveSymbolContext("foo.h", 0, false, eSymbolContextCompUnit, sc_list);
>
> 0 entries unless you actually have a compile unit for "foo.h" where
> "foo.h" _is_ the main compile unit file.
>
> > how many entries are in sc_list after the second call?  If it's still 1,
> then what is the difference with the first case?
> >
> > Is the only difference what I put into the line tables?  In the 'true'
> case, I fill out the line tables with all the contributions from foo.h, but
> in the 'false' case I don't?  But both still return the same number of
> entries in sc_list?
>
> No. You fill in a SymbolContext for each line entry that matches. If
> check_inlines is true, you through the line table for your compile unit
> (where "foo.cpp" is your compile unit's main source file) and search for
> all line entries that match regardless of if "foo.h" == compile unit file
> ("foo.cpp"). If check_inlines is false, then you _only_ look through the
> line table if the file matches your compile unit file (in this case "foo.h"
> != "foo.cpp" so you wouldn't look at _any_ line entries in "foo.cpp".
>
> > (Sorry this is so confusing, I'm planning to document this process as I
> go so that the next person that comes along will be able to have all this
> information up front)
>
> This option should almost be removed and we should assume "check_inlines
> == true" all the time. It can save time sometimes, but the user really
> always wants "check_inlines == true".
>
> Greg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20160229/7f91db74/attachment.html>