aprantl added a comment.
> @aprantl do you have an opinion on this? I tend to lean to the pedantic side
> on this kind of thing, but I'm persuadable.
As long as LLDB can deal with it I'm fine either way.
Emitting the separated DWARF 6 attribute as an extension sounds fine to me.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/IR/DIBuilder.cpp:159
- assert(((Lang <= dwarf::DW_LANG_Fortran08 && Lang >= dwarf::DW_LANG_C89) ||
+ assert(((Lang <= dwarf::DW_LANG_Ada2012 && Lang >= dwarf::DW_LANG_C89) ||
(Lang <= dwarf::DW_LANG_hi_user && Lang >= dwarf::DW_LANG_lo_user))
&&
----------------
Should we define a DW_LANG_HI_DWARF in the .def file?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D138597/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D138597
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
