================
@@ -977,35 +977,6 @@ class CommandObjectMemoryFind : public CommandObjectParsed
{
Options *GetOptions() override { return &m_option_group; }
protected:
- class ProcessMemoryIterator {
- public:
- ProcessMemoryIterator(ProcessSP process_sp, lldb::addr_t base)
- : m_process_sp(process_sp), m_base_addr(base) {
- lldbassert(process_sp.get() != nullptr);
- }
-
- bool IsValid() { return m_is_valid; }
-
- uint8_t operator[](lldb::addr_t offset) {
- if (!IsValid())
- return 0;
-
- uint8_t retval = 0;
- Status error;
- if (0 ==
- m_process_sp->ReadMemory(m_base_addr + offset, &retval, 1, error)) {
- m_is_valid = false;
- return 0;
----------------
clayborg wrote:
This is efficient only because our process caches memory on its own...
Otherwise reading memory 1 byte at a time would be more expensive. Not sure if
we can get any speed up by reading more than one byte at a time and then using
our own internal buffer.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92078
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
