labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. If you're going to be looking into jitted code more, I'd strongly encourage you to try to come up with a testing strategy here. Setting up a smoke test which jits a simple function using llvm jit, and tries to debug it shouldn't be fundamentally difficult (though it will likely be tedious to set up the relevant infrastructure), and it will increase our jit test coverage by a factor of infinity (from 0% to ??%). > Might it be better to write ET_EXEC on the JIT side instead? I don't think that would be right, but ET_DYN might be, since the jitted object behaves in a lot of ways like a shared library that was dlopened at runtime. OTOH, you could probably find a lot of differences too (I bet lli does not bother with generating the program headers for the jitted object) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61611/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61611 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
