Thierry Treyer
Thierry Treyer
> With this, the `field_analyser_dwarf.uprobe_args` unit test fails because liblldb willl fail to get function parameters for `func_3`. I was able to narrow it down to [dwarf_parser.cpp:80](https://github.com/bpftrace/bpftrace/blob/c8fd334f55e6b04a7eb3fc9a06822fc6b2a6344b/src/dwarf_parser.cpp#L80) where `func_3` is...
This look like an issue with LLDB and/or GCC 12.3.0, but not with GCC 11.4.1. I'm investigating further... In the meantime, as a workaround to unblock this PR, you can...
> Btw, I like how much simpler your method is for generating a DWARF data source - maybe we could switch the C data source across to that way in...
> To save me a bit of time reviewing: what was the reason for the recent changes to `dwarf_parser`, making `resolve_fields()` take a `shared_ptr`? The new `resolve_fields()` that takes the...
I had to change the `ARG0_STACK` from 8 to 16 for x86_64, since the probe stops after the `push rbp` instruction. See [System V ABI, page 21](https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/x86-64-ABI/-/jobs/artifacts/master/raw/x86-64-ABI/abi.pdf?job=build#page=21). I still need...
Clang and GCC don't emit code with the same ABI: [Godbolt](https://godbolt.org/z/e38erbjq4). Looking at the dwarfdump, Clang's stack args are at the `stack pointer + 16`, but GCC stack args are...
> I'm wondering if we can have a more descriptive name for the "probe_inline" config option. We don't want to keep this global setting as a long term solution though...
> Ah, I somehow missed that. In that case, I'm all in for dropping the feature :-) Sorry for the confusion and thanks for clearing it up! Following that, I...