firmiana402 wrote: > Indeed, that's exactly what I was trying to do but I ended up with new > modules for two reasons: > > * I wasn't sure how the current codebase would get affected with this > since DWARF6 has some new fields and the existing evaluator is based on > DWARF5 (correct me if I am wrong). > > * I believe DWARF6 is still in draft process, so getting the > functionality and logic right first would be better, at least what I thought. > We could have a separate CLI invoking command to only trigger the > experimental DWARF6 evaluation without disturbing the current one.
Although the current evaluator is based on DWARF5, major breaking changes between DWARF versions have historically been rare. As you can see, the evaluator remains largely compatible even with DWARF2, which was published in 1993. Consequently, adding DWARF6 support in the future should not require changes extensive enough to justify reimplementing the evaluator from scratch. To the best of my knowledge, extending the current evaluator to support the new opcodes/fields introduced in DWARF6 should also be relatively straightforward. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/205532 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
