Michael137 wrote: > > Not sure where we go from here then if this is a blocker. > > It's definitely a "problem", but I'm not sure if it's a "blocker". We had > some discussions about what we could do to absorb that cost, but it's not > trivial and it's getting kind of over my head. The thing is that, while the > size increase is unfortunate, the change also makes a lot sense as it makes > things consistent, both with gcc and with clang's non-structor functions. > This week is also pretty busy for all the llvm people, so we don't really > have an official position on this.
Ok good to hear there could be a way forward. I'll split out the debug-info changes into a separate PR on which we can discuss further. > > without having to do structural matching on the DIE context. I suppose we > > can go back to that method. That would also still leave the cross-module > > case an open question.. > > I like the structural match method, as it would open the door to potentially > removing the linkage names from declaration DIEs (thereby _saving_ debug_str > space), but that's a more speculative approach, with unknown performance and > other possible issues, so I don't feel entirely comfortable asking you to go > down that path. The cross module thing is tricky, but I don't think it's > fundamentally unsolvable -- basically, we just need to find a way to pass DIE > information from one module to another. Ack https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/149827 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits