================
@@ -50,13 +141,12 @@ static constexpr int StackPageSize = 20;
// s=3,l=3 = [th0->s3, label1, th1->s0]
static bool FillStackFrames(DAP &dap, lldb::SBThread &thread,
lldb::SBFormat &frame_format,
- llvm::json::Array &stack_frames, int64_t &offset,
- const int64_t start_frame, const int64_t levels,
- const bool include_all) {
+ std::vector<StackFrame> &stack_frames,
+ uint32_t &offset, const uint32_t start_frame,
+ const uint32_t levels, const bool include_all) {
bool reached_end_of_stack = false;
- for (int64_t i = start_frame;
- static_cast<int64_t>(stack_frames.size()) < levels; i++) {
- if (i == -1) {
+ for (uint32_t i = start_frame; stack_frames.size() < levels; i++) {
+ if (i == UINT32_MAX) {
----------------
da-viper wrote:
Yes, it can. I prefer using the UINT32_MAX as overflow is defined behaviour.
something like
```cpp
// start_frame is no longer const.
if (start_frame == UINT32_MAX) {
stack_frames.emplace_back(
CreateExtendedStackFrameLabel(thread, frame_format));
start_frame = 0;
}
for (uint32_t i = start_frame; stack_frames.size() < levels; i++) {
...
```
it would better to refactor how we fill the frames to make it clear what is
happening but should be in a different PR.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/173226
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
