labath added a comment.
Sorry, I have been a bit busy.
I've committed this in now. Thank you for the patch.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29095
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL293714: Open ELF core dumps with more than 64K sections
(authored by labath).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29095?vs=86148=86507#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
EugeneBi added a comment.
So, what's now? Can somebody commit it, please?
I do not see any option to do it myself.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29095
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
EugeneBi updated this revision to Diff 86148.
EugeneBi added a comment.
Used named constants for SHN_UNDEF and SHN_XINDEX sentinels.
Unfortunately ELF.h lacks definition of PN_XNUM, so left it as a comment.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29095
Files:
source/Plugins/ObjectFile/ELF/ELFHeader.cpp
EugeneBi added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/ObjectFile/ELF/ELFHeader.cpp:108
+ if (ok) {
+if (e_phnum_hdr == 0x)
+ e_phnum = section_zero.sh_info;
EugeneBi wrote:
> EugeneBi wrote:
> > davidb wrote:
> > > Would this make more sense
EugeneBi added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/ObjectFile/ELF/ELFHeader.cpp:108
+ if (ok) {
+if (e_phnum_hdr == 0x)
+ e_phnum = section_zero.sh_info;
EugeneBi wrote:
> davidb wrote:
> > Would this make more sense to compare against a
EugeneBi added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/ObjectFile/ELF/ELFHeader.cpp:108
+ if (ok) {
+if (e_phnum_hdr == 0x)
+ e_phnum = section_zero.sh_info;
davidb wrote:
> Would this make more sense to compare against a named constant
davidb added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Plugins/ObjectFile/ELF/ELFHeader.cpp:108
+ if (ok) {
+if (e_phnum_hdr == 0x)
+ e_phnum = section_zero.sh_info;
Would this make more sense to compare against a named constant ELF::PN_XNUM?
labath added a subscriber: lldb-commits.
labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I've added a quick test to demonstrate what I had in mind.
> Unfortunately, unlike release_39 branch, I cannot open my core dump, but the
> problem
