zturner marked 3 inline comments as done.
zturner added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFDebugInfoEntry.cpp:218
+ assert(offset < cu->GetNextCompileUnitOffset() &&
+ debug_info_data.ValidOffset(offset));
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> Should this be a lldb_assert() followed by `return make_error` instead?
I think it's reasonable to treat this as an internal consistency check, where
the pre-condition of this function is "offset must be a valid offset". Similar
to indexing an array out of bounds, your `operator[]` implementation would
assert that the index you passed is within range.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFDebugInfoEntry.cpp:1170
const dw_offset_t die_offset, Stream &s) {
- if (dwarf2Data == NULL) {
- s.PutCString("NULL");
- return false;
- }
+ assert(dwarf2Data);
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> Instead of passing a pointer and asserting, wouldn't it be better to pass a
> `SymbolFileDWARF &`?
Yes, but I was trying to keep the change set minimal, and doing so would
propagate that change many levels up the callstack until we reach
`SymbolFileDwarf`, at which point we would change all calls to pass `*this`
instead of `this`. That's a reasonable change, but should probably be done
separately to keep logically separate changes separate.
Note that, long term, we just won't even pass a `SymbolFileDWARF` to this
function at all, because if the point is to decouple the high and low level
interfaces, then the low-level interface can't know about the high level
interface.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59430/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59430
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
