DavidSpickett wrote: > The changes are still under active development, and we haven’t created a > dedicated branch for this work yet. The major benefits is to accommodate the > architectural differences without modifying existing code path.
Ok for now I'll say that if indeed it's better to have 2 distinct code paths, this PR would make sense as is. I think working on it as a separate code path is a good approach regardless of whether or not some parts get merged when upstreamed. So your efforts will not be wasted. Let me know when you've got something I can look at. > we’ve been following the LLVM naming convention In that case `ppc64`/`ppc64le` is fine. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/165367 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
