Michael137 wrote: > > It still seems pretty aggressive to log all LLDB_LOG_ERROR messages to the > > console, but this is a stop-gap until we want to do something about it. > > I said as much on the PR, and still think it's too aggressive to send all > these errors to the system log.
@JDevlieghere @adrian-prantl in case we want to revisit this. Last time we spoke about this @felipepiovezan suggested having a more explicit name for the macro (something in the spirit of `LLDB_LOG_ERROR_DONT_DROP_THIS`). So LLDB devs don't accidentally log a frequently occurring `llvm::Error` to the console > > Looks like this error just happens anytime we build the aranges table for a > > CU and the `DW_TAG_subprogram` doesn't have a > > `DW_AT_low_pc`/`DW_AT_high_pc`; which is always the case for forward > > declarations. Should we maybe just skip the call to > > `GetAttributeAddressRanges` here when we're looking at forward declaration > > DIEs? > > That's probably fine. This code sounds like it could be relatively hot, so I > feel slightly bad for doing another scan of the abbreviation just to do what > we do anyway (ignore the DIE), but this may actually be faster than > constructing the llvm::Error object. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144059 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144037 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
