Recently in #107731 this change was revereted due to excess memory size
in `TestSkinnyCore`. This was due to a bug where a range's end was being
passed as size. Creating massive memory ranges.
Additionally, and requiring additional review, I added more unit tests
and more verbose logic to the merging of save core memory regions.
@jasonmolenda as an FYI.
Reapplies #106293, testing identified issue in the merging code. I used
this opportunity to strip CoreFileMemoryRanges to it's own file and then
add unit tests on it's behavior.
This patch adds the option to specify specific memory ranges to be
included in a given core file. The current implementation lets user
specified ranges either be in addition to a certain save style, or
independent of them via the newly added custom enum.
To achieve being inclusive of save style, I've moved from a std::vector
of ranges to a RangeDataVector, and to join overlapping ranges to
prevent duplication of memory ranges in the core file.
As a non function bonus, when SBSavecore was initially created, the
header was included in the lldb-private interfaces, and I've fixed that
and moved it the forward declare as an oversight. CC @bulbazord in case
we need to include that into swift.
Reapply #100443 and #101770. These were originally reverted due to a
test failure and an MSAN failure. I changed the test attribute to
restrict to x86 (following the other existing tests). I could not
reproduce the test or the MSAN failure and no repo steps were provided.
This class is technically not usable in its current state. When you use
it in a simple C++ project, your compiler will complain about an
incomplete definition of SaveCoreOptions. Normally this isn't a problem,
other classes in the SBAPI do this. The difference is that
SBSaveCoreOptions has a default destructor in the header, so the
compiler will attempt to generate the code for the destructor with an
incomplete definition of the impl type.
All methods for every class, including constructors and destructors,
must have a separate implementation not in a header.
In #98403 I enabled the SBSaveCoreOptions object, which allows users via
the scripting API to define what they want saved into their core file.
As the first option I've added a threadlist, so users can scan and
identify which threads and corresponding stacks they want to save.
In order to support this, I had to add a new method to `Process.h` on
how we identify which threads are to be saved, and I had to change the
book keeping in minidump to ensure we don't double save the stacks.
Important to @jasonmolenda I also changed the MachO coredump to accept
these new APIs.
This PR adds `SBSaveCoreOptions`, which is a container class for options
when LLDB is taking coredumps. For this first iteration this container
just keeps parity with the extant API of `file, style, plugin`. In the
future this options object can be extended to allow users to take a
subset of their core dumps.
