[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39307: Fix global data symbol resolution

[Greg Clayton via lldb-commits]

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 6:05 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:59 PM Jim Ingham via Phabricator <reviews at reviews.llvm.org <mailto:reviews at reviews.llvm.org>> wrote:
> jingham added a comment.
> 
> Note, BTW, we absolutely need some way to say "this symbol from this library".  But first of all, if we're going to do this you need to be able to mix & match within an expression which you can't do with a flag to expr.   Instead you need something like:
> 
> (lldb) expr $$MyDylib$my_symbol + $$MyOtherDylib$my_other_symbol
> 
> That syntax is ugly, we should try to think of something better.  But the main point is this should only be necessary when lldb can't find a unique symbol.  When we can no intervention should be required.
> 
> +1, this is very useful.  The Microsoft syntax for this is here:
> 
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/debugger/context-operator-cpp <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/debugger/context-operator-cpp>
> 
> Which is pretty nice imo

The main reason for using $ decorated names is because clang will accept them as identifiers and ask us about them. So "$$MyOtherDylib$my_other_symbol" is just a valid identifier and would result in a find external lexical decl call that we can fill in with whatever we want. 

We don't really want to muck with clang by overloading stuff with symbols that would hose up clang (like the MSVC examples "{,,EXAMPLE.dll}SomeFunction", "EXAMPLE.dll!SomeFunction", and "{,,"a long, long, library name.dll"}g_Var". The { } and , characters would hose up the expression parser. So I would vote to use the $ decoration as Jim suggested.

Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20171026/69cf1684/attachment.html>