[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb][Windows] Relax dependent-modules-nodupe-windows OS-DLL ordering (PR #203305)

[Charles Zablit via lldb-commits]

charles-zablit wrote:

> I think your intended meaning is: The post-run "target modules list" output orders the OS DLLs (ntdll, kernel32, ...) by load address, **the behaviour of "target modules list"** differs between the in-process debugger and the lldb-server-on-Windows path.

That's what I meant yes.

> So if that's the case, I wonder if there is need for a follow up. Whether:
> 
> * `target modules list` should actually sort them by load address instead of relying on the server's response order, or -
> * lldb-server on Windows should use an ordered container and/or return a sorted response
> 
> Though if we've never said we'd sort the list like this, let's not make any extra effort now. I doubt we have.

As of right now, I don't think it's necessary to add extra complexity to ensure that the 2 behaviours to match. If this becomes required on lldb-server as we enable more tests, the work that has to be done will be obvious enough.

> Side note: I went looking for a rule to understand "which", and it seems entirely vibes based which I suppose is appropriate for current year. Mostly harmless but sometimes like here, it can be problematic.

Agreed, looking back, the use was ambiguous here.


https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/203305