[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D157167: [lldb] Add flag to DynamicLoader::LoadBinaryWithUUIDAndAddress to control whether we fall back to reading the binary out of memory

[Jason Molenda via Phabricator via lldb-commits]

jasonmolenda added inline comments.


================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Target/DynamicLoader.h:267
   ///
+  /// \param[in] allow_use_memory_image_last_resort
+  ///     If no better binary image can be found, allow reading the binary
----------------
JDevlieghere wrote:
> Nit: seems like either `allow_memory_image_last_resort` or `use_memory_image_last_resort` would convey the same thing. 
Yes, good suggestion, my name wasn't very good here.


================
Comment at: lldb/test/API/macosx/lc-note/multiple-binary-corefile/TestMultipleBinaryCorefile.py:38-39
         )
+        if self.TraceOn():
+            self.runCmd("script print('Creating corefile with command %s')" % cmd)
         call(cmd, shell=True)
----------------
bulbazord wrote:
> JDevlieghere wrote:
> > Out of curiosity what's the point of doing `self.runCmd("script print ...` vs printing the same thing directly? Does this run in another context or something? Do we save the command output somewhere? 
> I'm also curious. Printing directly is probably less expensive than running a print command through the lldb python script interpreter.
In the past, when I had an SB API test `print()` directly, the trace output is buffered differently than STDOUT, so I've done this hack in a few places to get the print to happen exactly when the test is executing.  Doing a `if self.TraceOn(): self.runCmd("bt"); print("got here")` will not print the two next to each other, iirc.  I can switch to a print and confirm my memory of this.


================
Comment at: lldb/test/API/macosx/lc-note/multiple-binary-corefile/TestMultipleBinaryCorefile.py:122-123
         )
+        dwarfdump_cmd_output = subprocess.check_output(
+            ('/usr/bin/dwarfdump --uuid "%s"' % self.aout_exe), shell=True
+        ).decode("utf-8")
----------------
JDevlieghere wrote:
> I know this was moved and this goes beyond the scope of this patch, but we should be using the just-built `llvm-dwarfdump` instead of whatever happens to be on the system. Obviously no big deal for extracting the `--uuid` but it's relatively easy to hook up and what we do for other llvm tools such as dsymutil. objdump, etc. 
I wasn't sure how do find & run that in the build dir; it's used in a few Shell tests but none in API.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D157167/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D157167