labath wrote: > This would be quite the rework of the FindInMemory() API. Would it be worth > creating an Issue and move the discussion there to unblock this PR?
I think the two are related because if we (I?) do something like I proposed, then this patch becomes unnecessary (or even gets in the way). I also don't think that would be as much work as you think. In fact, if we look at the number of new APIs added, I'm certain that implementation would end up being simpler. `GetMemoryRegionInfo` is an existing API, and it serves a similar purpose as `VMRangeToFileOffset` in this patch, so the change would mainly consist of rewriting `FindInMemory` to use that instead. The only new API being added is the DataExtractor version of the `ReadMemory` function, but that one can be naturally split into a separate patch (and it may not even be needed -- depending on exactly how much performance you want to get out of this). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102536 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
