omjavaid added a comment. In D102757#2781677 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102757#2781677>, @DavidSpickett wrote:
> In D102757#2781561 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102757#2781561>, @omjavaid > wrote: > >> Now that we are stripping away top byte is there any information that may be >> useful for the remote side and we are removing that on the host side. I am >> thinking why we should strip top byte on host side rather than making it the >> responsibility of the remote end? > > I don't think there'd be anything in there the remote needs. Not for > `qMemoryRegionInfo`. > > lldb-server will need to remove memory tags somehow anyway (because the tag > packet spec says you can send tagged addresses) so we could have it do all of > it. My unknown there is "non remote" kinda targets like ELF cores or > minidumps, does using the ABI for just those get for those targets get messy. This looks ok but keep in mind it has effect on ProcessWinodws and Minidump that we are not currently testing. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D102757/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D102757 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
