Conventions are part of the mangling, as least as described in:
https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/ABI.rst#mangling
We can also adapt the mangling if need be.
> On Oct 14, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Adrian Prantl via swift-lldb-dev
> wrote:
>
> Could they be safely identified by their m
Could they be safely identified by their mangled name? Do they have a unique
prefix?
-- adrian
> On Oct 14, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer
> wrote:
>
> No, this is not the case. Objective-C method thunks use the _T prefix and
> follow the c calling convention.
>
>> On Oct 13, 2016, a
No, this is not the case. Objective-C method thunks use the _T prefix and
follow the c calling convention.
> On Oct 13, 2016, at 1:10 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote:
>
> My understanding was that once Swift switches to the new calling convention,
> every function in the Swift namespace (^_T.*) would
> On Oct 13, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Todd Fiala via swift-lldb-dev
> wrote:
> I’m not entirely sure of all the places that care.
>
> * Possibly the unwinder, although that might not care since it needs to
> handle hand-rolled assembly and everything in between. Jason could say more
> here.
Havi
I commented in the Radar.
"step-out" captures the return and error values. That's done in some
hand-rolled code in lldb, so that would have to be modified. Longer term it
would be great if Swift (and Clang) had a function that did: Function Decl ->
dwarf expression for return location, then
My understanding was that once Swift switches to the new calling convention,
every function in the Swift namespace (^_T.*) would implicitly use the Swift
calling convention. If this assertion should for some reason not be true, we
will have to decorate the functions in DWARF with a calling conve
> On Oct 13, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Todd Fiala via swift-lldb-dev
> wrote:
>
> Hi Arnold!
>
> Thanks for the heads up. Comments below.
>
>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer via swift-lldb-dev
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi LLDB team,
>>
>> as part of the ABI work for this year we would
> On Oct 13, 2016, at 12:54 PM, ematej...@apple.com wrote:
>
> + Michael to see this thread (he’s the ABI DRI from the frontend side.)
>
> Ewa
>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Todd Fiala via swift-lldb-dev
>> mailto:swift-lldb-dev@swift.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Arnold!
>>
>> Thanks for the heads
> On Oct 13, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Todd Fiala wrote:
>
> e identify C/C++ code that was using this calling convention?
I think, llvm would have to mark such functions with a DWARF entry?
I don’t know how much DWARF info generated by a clang that supports swiftcc
would shield an older lldb from h
Hi Arnold!
Thanks for the heads up. Comments below.
> On Oct 13, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer via swift-lldb-dev
> wrote:
>
> Hi LLDB team,
>
> as part of the ABI work for this year we would like to adopt the swift
> calling convention.
>
> I am working on the swift/llvm side of
10 matches
Mail list logo
