On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 18:58:27 +0200, Davide Italiano wrote: > Yes, I definitely agree. It's clear this needs more discussion, so I > don't think it's reasonable if we revert this for now and > reconsider.
I have reverted this https://reviews.llvm.org/D45170 by: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL329423 > I'll also take a look at the interfaces in LLVM to get a better sense > of what should be done. If nobody does this, I'll probably get to the > revert by the end of the day. I admit my DWARFUnit was in part alignment with LLVM's DWARFUnit (so that there is one abstract superclass) but at the same time even more differentiating it (as LLVM has no DWARFPartialUnit and DWARFTypeUnit will need another intermediate superclass which I call DWARFSomeNameUnit in that commit text above). I was sure glad with my DWARFUnit https://reviews.llvm.org/D40466 approval to be able to commit my DWZ support on top of it making LLDB usable on Red Hat systems. But I understand LLDB code unification with LLVM is more important. The DWZ patchset now waits on https://reviews.llvm.org/D40467 approval. Greg did not like it much so I am now working on new DWARFOneFileOffset being type-incompatible to dw_offset_t so that both types can be used safely without accidentally interchanging each other; instead of my current relying on unsafe type-compatible "dw_offset_t offset" vs. "dw_offset_t file_offset" parameters naming. Maybe LLDB should really reuse LLVM DWARFUnit first and I will implement DWZ already on top of LLVM's DWARFUnit? I have no idea myself now how complex task is the reuse of LLVM DWARFUnit. For the LLVM DWARFUnit reusal this Greg's commit would be sure fine; just completely unrelated to why+how I made this DWARFUnit split myself. Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list email@example.com http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits