[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D17860: Fix "ninja check-lldb" crash in IRExecutionUnit.cpp

Ted Woodward via lldb-commits lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Mar 9 11:37:01 PST 2016

So you'd like to see this function get the address of a function that it
finds in either symbols or debug info?

Which should it prioritize when we have both?

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

-----Original Message-----
From: jingham at apple.com [mailto:jingham at apple.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 5:35 PM
To: reviews+D17860+public+90c8568c5fdb4800 at reviews.llvm.org
Cc: ted.woodward at codeaurora.org; zturner at google.com; scallanan at apple.com;
amccarth at google.com; lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] D17860: Fix "ninja check-lldb" crash in

> On Mar 8, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Ted Woodward <ted.woodward at codeaurora.org>
> ted added a comment.
> The change is to guard against the case where candidate_sc.symbol is
> candidate_sc.function is only used when load_address !=
LLDB_INVALID_ADDRESS, but load_address is set on line 802:
>  load_address = candidate_sc.symbol->ResolveCallableAddress(*target);
> so candidate_sc.symbol must be valid.
> The purpose of the function is to get the address of a symbol, so I don't
think we care about candidate_sc.function when candidate_sc.symbol is

It's name is "FindInSymbols" but I am pretty sure that's in
contradistinction to "FindInRuntimes" not "FindInDebugInformation".  The
searches that feed this function search both Symbols and Debug Information.
I agree with you that the original code worked incorrectly in the case where
you had a function from debug information and not from symbols, but your
change would need to be reverted to make this work properly (and states an
intent that I don't think is correct.)


> http://reviews.llvm.org/D17860

More information about the lldb-commits mailing list