[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb][AIX] Header Parsing for XCOFF Object File in AIX (PR #116338)

[Pavel Labath via lldb-commits]

================
@@ -98,9 +98,20 @@ class ObjectFileXCOFF : public lldb_private::ObjectFile {
                   const lldb::ProcessSP &process_sp, lldb::addr_t header_addr);
 
 protected:
+  typedef struct llvm::object::XCOFFFileHeader64 xcoff_header_t;
+
+  typedef struct llvm::object::XCOFFAuxiliaryHeader64 xcoff_aux_header_t;
+
   static lldb::WritableDataBufferSP
   MapFileDataWritable(const lldb_private::FileSpec &file, uint64_t Size,
                       uint64_t Offset);
+
+private:
+  bool CreateBinary();
+
+  xcoff_header_t m_xcoff_header = {};
+  xcoff_aux_header_t m_xcoff_aux_header = {};
----------------
labath wrote:

What's the issue with calling those functions? It can't be performance, as these functions merely return a pointer the the member inside the llvm object file. If you find too `m_binary->auxiliaryHeader64()` long/repetitive, I'd suggest wrapping that in an accessor functions -- though that will only save a few chars, so I'm not sure if its worth it (it may be better to have an accessor for the fields of the header that are used often -- that would also be a way to abstract the 64/32 difference). And if you're worried about the `m_binary` pointer being null, then I'd suggest setting up the code in a way that its non-nullness is guaranteed (for example, by creating the XCOFFObjectFile in the CreateInstance function and passing it to the constructor.

Bottom line: I still believe there's no need for this member and there's a better way to achieve what you're trying to do. I'm not sure what it is, because I'm don't know what exactly you are trying to achieve.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/116338