DavidSpickett wrote: > which (according to the paragraph you quote) means that the function's entry > point is 0x1cfb0, which is not the lowest address in the function.
I managed to nitpick the text but then go on to assume the ranges would be sorted with start address increasing. Bad idea. But, if the first range was the `[0x0000000000001a0f, 0x0000000000001b07)` range, then the lexical block range `[0x0000000000001ae8, 0x0000000000001b07)` would not produce this error. So then I think what if we used the minimum base address of the ranges, and I have just reinvented what you have already done with `m_first_code_address`. I think `InitializeFirstCodeAddressRecursive` is calculating exactly this. Removing this error case sounds good to me. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132395 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
