The class is only used from one place, which is trivial to implement
using the llvm class.
The main difference is that in the new implementation, the ranges are
parsed each time anew (instead of being parsed at startup and cached). I
believe this is fine because:
- this is already how things work with DWARF v5 debug_rnglists
- parsing debug_ranges is fairly fast (definitely faster than rnglists)
- generally, this result will be cached at a higher level anyway.
Browsing the code I did find one instance where that is not the case --
SymbolFileDWARF::ResolveFunctionAndBlock -- which is called each time we
resolve an address (to the block level). However, this function is
already pretty suboptimal: it first traverses the DIE tree (which
involves parsing all the DIE attributes) to find the correct block, then
it parses them again to construct the `lldb_private::Block`
representation, and *then* it uses the ID of the block DIE it found in
the first step to look up the `Block` object. If this turns out to be a
bottleneck, I think there are better ways to optimize it than caching
the debug_ranges parse.
The motiviation for this is that DWARFDebugRanges sorts the block
ranges, even though the order of the ranges is load-bearing (in the
absence of DW_AT_low_pc, the "base address" of a scope is determined by
the first range entry). Delaying the parsing (and sorting) step makes it
easier to access the first entry.
In preparation for eanbling 64bit support in LLDB switching to use llvm::formatv
instead of format MACROs.
Reviewed By: labath, JDevlieghere
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D139955
Because the diagnostic events are processed by the default event handler
in its own thread, tests cannot rely on output ordering. Split stdout
and stderr to make the test reliable again.
In D98289#inline-939112 @dblaikie said:
Perhaps this could be more informative about what makes the range list
index of 0 invalid? "index 0 out of range of range list table (with
range list base 0xXXX) with offset entry count of XX (valid indexes
0-(XX-1))" Maybe that's too verbose/not worth worrying about since
this'll only be relevant to DWARF producers trying to debug their
DWARFv5, maybe no one will ever see this message in practice. Just
a thought.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102851
By moving them into a folder with a local lit config
requiring x86. All these tests use x86 target triples.
There are two tests that require target-x86_64 because
they run program files (instead of just needing the backend).
Those are moved to the x86 folder also but their REQUIRES are
unchanged.
Reviewed By: JDevlieghere
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100193
