[PATCH] D57083: llvm-symbolizer: Add support for -i and -inlines as aliases for -inlining

[James Henderson via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jhenderson added a comment.

In D57083#1369833 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57083#1369833>, @pcc wrote:

> I think my main concern is the difference in output format. For llvm-symbolizer we have:
>
>   $ bin/llvm-symbolizer -e ../d/bin/llvm-tblgen 0x7dd050 
>   main
>   /usr/local/google/home/pcc/l/d/../llvm/utils/TableGen/TableGen.cpp:246:0
>  
>
>
> While for addr2line we have:
>
>   $ addr2line -e ../d/bin/llvm-tblgen 0x7dd050 
>   /usr/local/google/home/pcc/l/d/../llvm/utils/TableGen/TableGen.cpp:246
>
>
> The sanitizers (and various other tools, e.g. https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/android_ndk/+/952475 ) depend on the current default llvm-symbolizer output format, and presumably users of addr2line depend on the default output format of that tool as well. So it makes much more sense to me for the addr2line compatibility features to be either part of a separate tool or be busyboxed into the current llvm-symbolizer binary, similar to llvm-ar/llvm-lib.


FWIW, ignoring the column index, you can get the same output between the two by adding --functions to addr2line or --functions=none to llvm-symbolizer. This appears to be a historical difference that has existed ever since llvm-symbolizer was created. I did some initial investigation of this in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40072#c2, with my conclusion being that we need a wider discussion on this topic at a later date. I've actually submitted a BoF proposal for Euro LLVM for discussing GNU compatibility of LLVM binary tools like llvm-symbolizer, though I don't yet know if it's been accepted.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D57083/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D57083