llvm dev - Jul 2015 - [LLVMdev] LoadedObjectInfo::getSectionLoadAddress

Hi Lang,

LoadedObjectInfo::getSectionLoadAddress takes StringRef as an arg. That breaks
if the object file has multiple sections with the same name. I made a change to
add an overload that takes a SectionRef&. Can you please take a look?

https://github.com/erozenfeld/llvm/commit/65f635e426bdc8e80a29ed370a78f0c0a282f265

Thanks,

Eugene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150723/e9a25f37/attachment.html>

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Eugene Rozenfeld
<Eugene.Rozenfeld at microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi Lang,
>
>
>
> LoadedObjectInfo::getSectionLoadAddress takes StringRef as an arg. That
> breaks if the object file has multiple sections with the same name. I made
a
> change to add an overload that takes a SectionRef&. Can you please take
a
> look?
>
>
>
>
https://github.com/erozenfeld/llvm/commit/65f635e426bdc8e80a29ed370a78f0c0a282f265
Out of curiosity, is there any reason not to send this through the
normal llvm-commits patch
submission/review process?

-- Meador

No real reason, just wanted to get an informal opinion first. Submitted via
Phabricator now.

http://reviews.llvm.org/D11474


Eugene

-----Original Message-----
From: Meador Inge [mailto:meadori at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 8:45 AM
To: Eugene Rozenfeld <Eugene.Rozenfeld at microsoft.com>
Cc: Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com>; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LoadedObjectInfo::getSectionLoadAddress

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Eugene Rozenfeld <Eugene.Rozenfeld at
microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi Lang,
>
>
>
> LoadedObjectInfo::getSectionLoadAddress takes StringRef as an arg. 
> That breaks if the object file has multiple sections with the same 
> name. I made a change to add an overload that takes a SectionRef&. Can 
> you please take a look?
>
>
>
>
https://github.com/erozenfeld/llvm/commit/65f635e426bdc8e80a29ed370a78f0c0a282f265

Out of curiosity, is there any reason not to send this through the normal
llvm-commits patch submission/review process?

-- Meador