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

Reply via email to