labath accepted this revision.
labath added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================
Comment at:
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/ProcessGDBRemote.cpp:4260-4261
if (llvm::to_integer(value, reg_info.byte_size))
- reg_info.byte_size /= CHAR_BIT;
+ reg_info.byte_size =
+ (reg_info.byte_size + CHAR_BIT - 1) / CHAR_BIT;
} else if (name == "type") {
----------------
`llvm::divideCeil(reg_info.byte_size, CHAR_BIT)`, perhaps
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/ProcessGDBRemote.cpp:4357
assert(reg_info.byte_size != 0);
registers.push_back(reg_info);
----------------
mgorny wrote:
> omjavaid wrote:
> > mgorny wrote:
> > > omjavaid wrote:
> > > > @mgorny the assert already exists but then we also want to allow bit
> > > > sized registers although they ll be viewed as byte length for now.
> > > Ah, right. I suppose you could skip zero-byte registers though. That
> > > should amend the assert with better release behavior.
> > on a second thought, I dont see a zero sized register being sent by stub as
> > a big enough reason to abort the whole debug session unless its one of
> > GPRs. May be we skip the assert altogether and replace it with an error
> > message.
> > What do you think?
> Yes, you are correct. Probably `LLDB_LOG` would go in line with how we handle
> these things.
Yeah, I don't think crashing is a good response to the stub sending us
nonsensical register definitions. Though that seems like a separate issue..
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D111131/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D111131
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
