tberghammer added inline comments.
================
Comment at: source/Symbol/Symtab.cpp:974-978
@@ -973,5 +973,7 @@
Symbol &symbol = m_symbols[entry.data];
-
- symbol.SetByteSize(end_section_file_addr -
symbol_file_addr);
- symbol.SetSizeIsSynthesized(true);
+ if (!symbol.GetByteSizeIsValid())
+ {
+ symbol.SetByteSize(end_section_file_addr -
symbol_file_addr);
+ symbol.SetSizeIsSynthesized(true);
+ }
}
----------------
clayborg wrote:
> You can remove this if statement right? Symbol byte size will always be valid
> no?
I case of ELF all synbol size will be valid but I think this code is used for
mach-o as well where they won't. The condition is kind of saying "if (mach-o)"
================
Comment at: source/Symbol/Symtab.cpp:1070-1071
@@ +1069,4 @@
+ Symbol* symbol = SymbolAtIndex(entry->data);
+ if (symbol->ContainsFileAddress(file_addr))
+ return symbol;
+ }
----------------
clayborg wrote:
> Why do we need to check this? Won't
> "m_file_addr_to_index.FindEntryThatContains(file_addr);" already check this
> for us?
The m_file_addr_to_index initialized with extending all 0 byte entry until the
next entry so it can handle mach-o as well and because of this an entry can
cover a larger address range then it's symbol.
An alternative implementation would be to sort the symbols based on address.
Then calculate the size for all of them if they are not valid (mach-o) and
finally generate the entries based on that. That way we can get rid of this
condition but Symtab::InitAddressIndexes would become more complicated and most
likely a bit less efficient.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16186
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
