On 11 July 2014 10:50, Todd Fiala <[email protected]> wrote: > > I was about to give his second patch a look now. When you looked at it, you > were looking at his first one, is that correct? Any thoughts on the second > one?
That's correct - I was specifically talking about the first patch. I do not believe the second patch will break anything for me -- if we have an ELF file with no sections then m_section_headers.empty() will be true, and we'll just have an additional ParseSectionHeaders() call, as we do today. Either way I think the first patch is correct and that we should apply it, regardless of whether we also apply the second patch. If m_section_headers is not empty() then we must have already parsed the section headers so should not fall back to the defaults. _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
