Summary:
This adds support for auto-detection of path style to SymbolFileBreakpad
(similar to how r351328 did the same for DWARF). We guess each file
entry separately, as we have no idea which file came from which compile
units (and different compile units can have different path styles). The
breakpad generates should have already converted the paths to absolute
ones, so this guess should be reasonable accurate, but as always with
these kinds of things, it is hard to give guarantees about anything.
In an attempt to bring some unity to the path guessing logic, I move the
guessing logic from inside SymbolFileDWARF into the FileSpec class and
have both symbol files use it to implent their desired behavior.
Reviewers: clayborg, lemo, JDevlieghere
Subscribers: aprantl, markmentovai, lldb-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57895
llvm-svn: 353702
The tests are failing on windows because the paths in the symbol file
are parsed using the host path style. I'm working on a patch to have
SymbolFileBreakpad auto-detect the correct path style (similar to dwarf
r351328).
I originally wanted to make this a part of the initial line-table patch,
but then I simply forgot.
llvm-svn: 353410
Summary:
This patch teaches SymbolFileBreakpad to parse the line information in
breakpad files and present it to lldb.
The trickiest question here was what kind of "compile units" to present
to lldb, as there really isn't enough information in breakpad files to
correctly reconstruct those.
A couple of options were considered
- have the entire file be one compile unit
- have one compile unit for each FILE record
- have one compile unit for each FUNC record
The main drawback of the first approach is that all of the files would
be considered "headers" by lldb, and so they wouldn't be searched if
target.inline-breakpoint-strategy=never. The single compile unit would
also be huge, and there isn't a good way to name it.
The second approach will create mostly correct compile units for cpp
files, but it will still be wrong for headers. However, the biggest
drawback here seemed to be the fact that this can cause a compile unit
to change mid-function (for example when a function from another file is
inlined or another file is #included into a function). While I don't
know of any specific thing that would break in this case, it does sound
like a thing that we should avoid.
In the end, we chose the third option, as it didn't seem to have any
major disadvantages, though it was not ideal either. One disadvantage
here is that this generates a large number of compile units, and there
is still a question on how to name it. We chose to simply name it after
the first line record in that function. This should be correct 99.99% of
the time, though it can produce somewhat strange results if the very
first line record comes from an #included file.
Reviewers: clayborg, zturner, lemo, markmentovai
Subscribers: lldb-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56595
llvm-svn: 353404
Pavel Labath