[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D55142: Minidump debugging using the native PDB reader

Zachary Turner via lldb-commits lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Dec 13 04:03:30 PST 2018

On irc earlier i was talking about this with Greg and he said it should be
fine in his opinion. I’ll point him to this review in the morning so he can
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:30 AM Pavel Labath via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> labath added inline comments.
> ================
> Comment at: source/Commands/CommandObjectTarget.cpp:4246
>            if (symbol_file) {
> -            ObjectFile *object_file = symbol_file->GetObjectFile();
> ----------------
> lemo wrote:
> > note I had to bypass this check: we don't (yet) have a ObjectFilePDB so
> the SymbolFileNativePDB always points to the associated PE binary.
> >
> > the check itself seems valuable as a diagnostic but not strictly
> required. Should I add a TODO comment and/or open a bug to revisit this?
> I not sure this is a good idea. Isn't this the only way of providing
> feedback about whether the symbols were actually added? If we are unable to
> load the symbol file specified (perhaps because the user made a typo, or
> the file is corrupted), then the symbol vendor will just create a default
> SymbolFile backed by the original object file. Doesn't that mean this will
> basically always return true now?
> I think this is strictly worse that the previous solution as it lets the
> objectless-symbol-file hack leak out of SymbolFilePDB.
>   https://reviews.llvm.org/D55142/new/
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D55142
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20181213/f85f2645/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the lldb-commits mailing list