================ @@ -977,35 +977,6 @@ class CommandObjectMemoryFind : public CommandObjectParsed { Options *GetOptions() override { return &m_option_group; } protected: - class ProcessMemoryIterator { - public: - ProcessMemoryIterator(ProcessSP process_sp, lldb::addr_t base) - : m_process_sp(process_sp), m_base_addr(base) { - lldbassert(process_sp.get() != nullptr); - } - - bool IsValid() { return m_is_valid; } - - uint8_t operator[](lldb::addr_t offset) { - if (!IsValid()) - return 0; - - uint8_t retval = 0; - Status error; - if (0 == - m_process_sp->ReadMemory(m_base_addr + offset, &retval, 1, error)) { - m_is_valid = false; - return 0; ---------------- clayborg wrote:
This is efficient only because our process caches memory on its own... Otherwise reading memory 1 byte at a time would be more expensive. Not sure if we can get any speed up by reading more than one byte at a time and then using our own internal buffer. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92078 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits