Okay - so you're not aware then of any cases where we build ObjectFileELF files incrementally and might need to re-parse the headers to incrementally pick up anything new? (I'm not aware of it but just raise it as "Do we do this anywhere?").
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Ed Maste <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | [email protected] | 650-943-3180
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
