charles-zablit wrote: > I think your intended meaning is: The post-run "target modules list" output > orders the OS DLLs (ntdll, kernel32, ...) by load address, **the behaviour of > "target modules list"** differs between the in-process debugger and the > lldb-server-on-Windows path.
That's what I meant yes. > So if that's the case, I wonder if there is need for a follow up. Whether: > > * `target modules list` should actually sort them by load address instead of > relying on the server's response order, or - > * lldb-server on Windows should use an ordered container and/or return a > sorted response > > Though if we've never said we'd sort the list like this, let's not make any > extra effort now. I doubt we have. As of right now, I don't think it's necessary to add extra complexity to ensure that the 2 behaviours to match. If this becomes required on lldb-server as we enable more tests, the work that has to be done will be obvious enough. > Side note: I went looking for a rule to understand "which", and it seems > entirely vibes based which I suppose is appropriate for current year. Mostly > harmless but sometimes like here, it can be problematic. Agreed, looking back, the use was ambiguous here. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/203305 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
