Re: [lldb-dev] The two PDB plugins in LLDB
CC Nico On Wed, 3 Nov 2021, Pavel Labath wrote: [+ aleksandr] On 03/11/2021 09:18, Martin Storsjö via lldb-dev wrote: As far as I know, this is clearly the intended direction, but my understanding is also that the native PDB plugin isn't quite on the same functionality level yet. While that has been the intended direction all along, there has been very little progress made on this front in the last couple of years (D110172 is the only recent change in this direction). Yes, afaik the only one actively working on it changed jobs to work on something else. At this point, I'm not sure if anyone even knows what the missing functionality is. Obviously, this is not a good situation to be in. So, even if it is possible for Raphael to make progress here without actually deleting the DIA plugin, I'd still say we should at least start the process of its deprecation/removal. Sure, I guess that's the only practical way forward (and anybody interested in it can build an old version anyway). But it would indeed be great if someone who has a setup to actually use it (Aleksandr? Nico?) could at least try to test out both of them and enumerate what's expected to be working and what's not, in both of them. // Martin ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] The two PDB plugins in LLDB
[+ aleksandr] On 03/11/2021 09:18, Martin Storsjö via lldb-dev wrote: On Tue, 2 Nov 2021, Raphael Isemann via lldb-dev wrote: Unless removing the non-native PDB plugin has some negative impact on users (e.g., missing features in native plugin that work with the non-native plugin), I would propose we delete it and only keep the native PDB plugin in LLDB which seems far less work to maintain. As far as I know, this is clearly the intended direction, but my understanding is also that the native PDB plugin isn't quite on the same functionality level yet. I've been meaning to dive into it, try it out and see if there's something I could do help it along, but I haven't gotten to it, and I can't realistically take it on right now... While that has been the intended direction all along, there has been very little progress made on this front in the last couple of years (D110172 is the only recent change in this direction). At this point, I'm not sure if anyone even knows what the missing functionality is. Obviously, this is not a good situation to be in. So, even if it is possible for Raphael to make progress here without actually deleting the DIA plugin, I'd still say we should at least start the process of its deprecation/removal. pl ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] The two PDB plugins in LLDB
On Tue, 2 Nov 2021, Raphael Isemann via lldb-dev wrote: Unless removing the non-native PDB plugin has some negative impact on users (e.g., missing features in native plugin that work with the non-native plugin), I would propose we delete it and only keep the native PDB plugin in LLDB which seems far less work to maintain. As far as I know, this is clearly the intended direction, but my understanding is also that the native PDB plugin isn't quite on the same functionality level yet. I've been meaning to dive into it, try it out and see if there's something I could do help it along, but I haven't gotten to it, and I can't realistically take it on right now... // Martin ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
