On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:50 PM Robinson, Paul
wrote:
> On the lldb-dev thread I thought this was a reasonable idea
> (DW_AT_linkage_name on types) but given the use-case, probably best to
> confine it to classes with vtables? If there's a broader use-case it
> wasn't
On the lldb-dev thread I thought this was a reasonable idea (DW_AT_linkage_name
on types) but given the use-case, probably best to confine it to classes with
vtables? If there's a broader use-case it wasn't clear from the other thread;
there it was reported that LLDB really only uses the
Not much - I've put them on this part of the thread specifically to raise
attention.
If it doesn't get visibility here, maybe a cfe-dev thread would be good.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:33 PM Anton Gorenkov wrote:
> Sorry, I am quite new to the process. It seems, Adrian and
Sorry, I am quite new to the process. It seems, Adrian and Paul are in
the reviewers/subscribers list to the original review
(https://reviews.llvm.org/D39622). Should I do something else?
19.12.2017 23:06, David Blaikie wrote:
Yep, could be worth having a conversation with the GDB folks and/or
Yep, could be worth having a conversation with the GDB folks and/or at
least poke the other LLVM debug info folks (Adrian and Paul - Paul's pretty
interesting since he works with/on another (not LLDB nor GDB) debugger
which would have to think about this
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 8:09 AM xgsa wrote:
> David, thank you for the detailed answer and corner cases.
>
> Just to clarify: everywhere in my mail where I mentioned "debugger", I
> meant LLDB, but not GDB (except, where I mentioned GDB explicitly).
> Currently, I have no plans
David, thank you for the detailed answer and corner cases. Just to clarify: everywhere in my mail where I mentioned "debugger", I meant LLDB, but not GDB (except, where I mentioned GDB explicitly). Currently, I have no plans to work on GDB, however I would like to make the clang+LLDB pair working
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:21 AM Anton via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> xgsa added a comment.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39622#954585, @probinson wrote:
>
> > Philosophically, mangled names and DWARF information serve different
> purposes, and I don't think you will find
xgsa added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39622#954585, @probinson wrote:
> Philosophically, mangled names and DWARF information serve different
> purposes, and I don't think you will find one true solution where both of
> them can yield the same name that everyone will be happy with.
probinson added a comment.
Philosophically, mangled names and DWARF information serve different purposes,
and I don't think you will find one true solution where both of them can yield
the same name that everyone will be happy with. Mangled names exist to provide
unique and reproducible
xgsa updated this revision to Diff 126826.
xgsa retitled this revision from "Fix type debug information generation for
enum-based template specialization" to "Fix type name generation in DWARF for
template instantiations with enum types and template specializations".
xgsa edited the summary of
11 matches
Mail list logo