If the minidump contains a saved exception record use it automatically.
(This patch is cherry picked from the larger https://reviews.llvm.org/D55142)
Differential D56293
Use the minidump exception record if present lemo on Jan 3 2019, 2:58 PM. Authored by
Details If the minidump contains a saved exception record use it automatically. (This patch is cherry picked from the larger https://reviews.llvm.org/D55142)
Diff Detail Event TimelineComment Actions I don't think we can check in an executable file, we should try to compile it on the spot. We have 1-2 existing unit tests that check in an exe and we occasionally get reports that peoples' virus scanners flag them as trojans, even though they obviously aren't. In any case, I've been meaning to remove those tests, so I think we should set a precedent that executable binaries are never checked in. Is there something about this executable that makes it impractical to compile on the fly using the %build substitution? Comment Actions I have a minidump generator if you need me to make any specific minidump files for you. Comment Actions I think the impractical part comes when you need to use that compiled binary to generate a minidump. That said, I am not sure if you actually need the .exe for this test. Lldb should be able to open a core file/minidump without the matching executable file. It won't be terribly useful (for example, you won't get the disassembly around the crashing instructions), but you should be able to get the stop reason and the topmost PC for instance. Comment Actions While I agree that a checked-in exe shouldn't be needed in this (and most other) cases, I am not sure about the policy in general. For example, I can see a case for having a bunch of badly corrupted binaries (things like corrupted section headers, overlapping sections in the file; things that even yaml2obj will have trouble generating) and then a test that makes sure we do something reasonable (e.g., not crash) when opening them. These are exactly the kind of files that make paranoid virus scanners sound the alarm. Comment Actions Looks fine to me (but please wait for an ack from Zachary).
|
Since you're touching this, you might as well change this to a range-based for loop.