Hi, i know this has been asked before [1], but i just wanted to explore whether it's a waste of time to patch this into our LLDB fork. I talked about our architecture in [2]. It boils down to having to suspend/resume the inferior to quickly read a tiny bit of memory. This causes us quite a bit of problems as outlined in the other thread.
Our memory reads would be just that: fetch a block of memory from a known, non-stack address. We can resolve atomicity issues on our end. Do you think this would be feasible? Thanks, Mario [1] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/lldb-dev/2014-June/004139.html [2] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/lldb-dev/2014-December/006138.html
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
