probinson added a comment.

In D99250#2651394 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99250#2651394>, @jsji wrote:

> The list is growing,  but sure,  we will post a thread in llvm-dev about what 
> we met so far.
> Two big one would be that DBX not supporting string section(DW_FORM_strp) and 
>  column-info  in line no table.

Our practice has been for a "tuning" option to, effectively, expand into other 
options to control various bits of behavior.  Basically, there should never be 
behavior that can be controlled _only_ via the tuning option.  This is a design 
decision that was debated at length when we introduced tuning.

There is already an option to turn off column-info in the line table, so a new 
tuning option could easily imply that.  I'm not sure we support suppressing 
.debug_str, but if we do (or add it), that would be another option, and the new 
tuning would imply that. And so on.

If we want to emit different sets of language codes based on something other 
than the DWARF version, we'd need to invent a new option to control that, and 
then tuning could control whether that's on or off.

In D99250#2651204 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99250#2651204>, @dblaikie wrote:

> Does anyone else have a DWARFv3 consumer they care about? (@aprantl and 
> @probinson)
>
> Does anyone have a DWARF consumer that changes significantly based on the 
> language version (I guess lldb (@aprantl can you confirm?)? I doubt gdb does 
> (yeah, it just treats all C++ versions the same 
> <https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;f=gdb/dwarf2/read.c;h=ee6f3f7f7e14f722ec9bb6780563fa0bbbe268cc;hb=refs/heads/master#l21006>)?
>  how about Sony?)

I believe Sony is only using v4/v5 at this point.  Regarding dialect 
controlling debugger behavior, I think it's unlikely, as distinguishing C++ 
dialects is new in v5, its adoption is pretty recent (at least for us), and 
we'd want behavior to be consistent across v4/v5 as much as possible.  I'll 
verify that with our debugger guys.

If LLDB actually does _not_ have behavior change based on dialect, then we 
might as well control language codes based on DWARF version, and the patch 
should proceed.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D99250/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D99250

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to