[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb] Handle improperly nested blocks differently (PR #117725)

[Greg Clayton via lldb-commits]

https://github.com/clayborg commented:

Will this patch cause us to be able to have a `DW_TAG_subprogram` whose range is `[0x1000-0x2000)` and then have a `DW_AT_lexical_block` whose range doesn't exist within the `DW_TAG_subprogram` range and we will add it to the `DW_TAG_subprogram`? I worry because LTO and other passes might end up setting the address of a contained block to zero or -1 (tombstone). We don't want those added to the parent range unless the address is in the `DW_TAG_subprogram` range.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/117725