I agree with Jim in that it is nice to know when a compiler told us line 0, versus "invalid info" where UINT32_MAX is the value. I would vote to leave things as is unless you have a convincing argument otherwise.
On Mar 14, 2014, at 11:21 AM, jing...@apple.com wrote: > lldb uses LLDB_INVALID_LINE_NUMBER to mean line number information is not > available, and 0 to mean this is code that was generated by the compiler, but > is artificial. That's the way clang marks code (e.g. junk generated by ARC) > that lldb will need to step through, or whatever, but should not show to the > user. > > That's a useful distinction, and I'd like to maintain it. What bad behavior > are you seeing based on this? > > Jim > > On Mar 14, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Andrew MacPherson <andrew.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> gdb assumes that any debug entry with a line number of 0 means that line >> number information is not available (see struct symtab_and_line here): >> >> http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/gdb/gdb-967/src/gdb/symtab.h >> >> lldb currently uses UINT32_MAX for the same thing. >> >> I suggest changing lldb to use the same value as gdb so that it's possible >> to mark line entry data as invalid in the same way for both debuggers. >> >> Thanks, >> Andrew >> <invalid-line-number.patch>_______________________________________________ >> lldb-dev mailing list >> lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
