Higuoxing added a comment.
In D83116#2130019 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83116#2130019>, @labath wrote:
> What would you say if, instead of `AbbrevTableIndex`, we had a field like
> `AbbrevTableID`. The main difference would be that this "ID" field can be
> explicitly specified on the Abbrev table, and it does not have to be a
> sequentially increasing number (though it could of course be that by default).
I think it works. I'm fine with this approach, let's see what others thinking.
Thanks a lot for sharing your ideas!
debug_abbrev:
- ID: 1
Table:
- Code: 1
Tag: DW_TAG_something
Children: DW_CHILDREN_yes
Attributes:
- Attribute: DW_AT_something
Form: DW_FORM_something
- ID: 2
Table:
- Code: 1
Tag: DW_TAG_something
Children: DW_CHILDREN_yes
Attributes:
- Attribute: DW_AT_something
Form: DW_FORM_something
- ID: 3
Table:
- Code: 1
Tag: DW_TAG_something
Children: DW_CHILDREN_yes
Attributes:
- Attribute: DW_AT_something
Form: DW_FORM_something
debug_info:
- Length: 0x1234
Version: 4
AbbrevTableID: 3 ## references table 3
...
Entries:
- AbbrevCode: 1
Values:
- Value: 0x1234
- Length: 0x1234
Version: 4
AbbrevTableID: 2 ## references table 2
...
Entries:
- AbbrevCode: 1
Values:
- Value: 0x1234
- Length: 0x1234
Version: 4
AbbrevTableID: 1 ## references table 1
...
Entries:
- AbbrevCode: 1
Values:
- Value: 0x1234
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83116/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83116
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
