Temporary fix for memory leak when reading variables #115
Conversation
--------- Co-authored-by: Eugen-Andrei Gavriloaie <[email protected]>
sunshaoce
requested review from
JDevlieghere,
Teemperor,
jankratochvil,
tkrasnukha and
tedwoodward
|
It looks like no one has any objections to this PR. |
| @@ -304,7 +304,8 @@ void CMICmdCmdVarCreate::CompleteSBValue(lldb::SBValue &vrwValue) { | |||
| // And update its children | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any reason you are iterating over all of the children? This can go quite deep into structures of structures and could be quite costly since it is recursive. If any SBValue is asked for it values, it will update itself as needed. You don't need to iterate over all of its children.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the std::initializer_list case, you might have millions of children. I would suggest removing this entire loop as there is no need unless I am missing something.
And as an FYI: if you need to ask a SBValue if it can be expanded in a UI, it is best to use:
bool SBValue::MightHaveChildren();
This won't cause a type to complete itself just to answer if it can be expanded or not. LLDB lazily parses types and if you have a class, struct, union, we leave the type in forward declaration mode until someone asks something concrete from a type, like "SBValue::GetNumChildren()". Here you though you needed the number of children to be able to iterate over the children, but as stated above, I would suggest removing this loop unless it serves a purpose I can't see.
| const auto temp = vrwValue.GetNumChildren(); | ||
| const MIuint nChildren = temp > 64 ? 64 : temp; | ||
| for (MIuint i = 0; i < nChildren; ++i) { | ||
| lldb::SBValue member = vrwValue.GetChildAtIndex(i); | ||
| if (!member.IsValid()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would remove this loop if possible? You really don't want to always iterate over all children to see if any children have been updated as it is expensive. Especially if there is a rogue synthetic child provider saying they have way too many children.
If you do need to do this to iterate over a finite amount of children, I would read the "target.max-children-count" setting. If you have a new enough LLDB you can do:
SBDebugger debugger = ...;
uint64_t max_children = debugger.GetSetting("target.max-children-count").GetUnsignedIntegerValue(256);
This defaults to 256 in LLDB, but if we fail to return the value from the settings, it will return 256 as the fail value (the argument to GetUnsignedIntegerValue(...)).
|
@clayborg Thanks for your comments. Would you like to make a PR to fix this, considering there are fewer people developing this project? |
|
I don't work with the MI layer anymore. If this is being used in Visual Studio Code, the LLDB project fully supports a native lldb-dap plug-in that interfaces directly with the IDE without going through the GDB MI layering. I would suggest switching cppdebug over to using this as we actively maintain this. |
This change comes from the [clayborg ](https://github.com/clayborg)'s comment in #115 (comment) and should help solve the memory leak issues mentioned in #115. --------- Co-authored-by: Greg Clayton <[email protected]>
This is a temporary solution, from @shiretu microsoft/vscode-cpptools#7240 (comment) .
I'm not sure if it really works, so I hope everyone can give more feedback, thank you!
Related issues:
microsoft/vscode-cpptools#1899
microsoft/vscode-cpptools#5805
microsoft/vscode-cpptools#7240
microsoft/vscode-cpptools#9488
microsoft/vscode-cpptools#9831
llvm/llvm-project#53634
#89
#101
vadimcn/codelldb#987
vadimcn/codelldb#998
Co-authored-by: Eugen-Andrei Gavriloaie [email protected]