[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D100515: [lldb] Add GetCodeAddressMask and GetDataAddressMask to Process

[Peter Collingbourne via Phabricator via lldb-commits]

pcc added inline comments.


================
Comment at: lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp:5569-5570
+
+  if (m_code_address_mask == 0)
+    return -1; // All bits are used for addressing.
+
----------------
JDevlieghere wrote:
> jasonmolenda wrote:
> > pcc wrote:
> > > Is this part correct? (Same below.) In D100521 you have
> > > ```
> > >   if (pc & pac_sign_extension)
> > >     return pc | mask;
> > >   return pc & (~mask);
> > > ```
> > > So it looks like this would cause the pc to be set to 0 (or -1)?
> > I get confused so I like to do this by hand quickly to make sure I understand.
> > 
> > given mask of 1110000 and addr of xxx1011 where 'x' are PAC bits,
> > 
> > b55 == 1: m | a == 1111011
> > b55 == 0: ~m & a == 0001011
> > 
> > given mask of 1111111, low address 0001011 and high address 1111011,
> > 
> > b55 == 1: m & ha == ha
> > b55 == 0: ~m | la == la
> > 
> > am I  not thinking of something that could unify these?  I can confuse myself so easily with these things.
> > 
> > We could also detect a mask of -1 and just return the original address in FixCodeAddress/FixDataAddress, right.  That would be very simple.
> I've added checking for -1 in D100521
With a mask of 1111111 isn't it

b55 == 1: m | ha == 1111111
b55 == 0: ~m & la == 0000000

I think you can just remove lines 5569-5570 here as well as lines 819-820 from D100521.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D100515/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D100515