[LLVMdev] outdated debug metamata doc?

[Manman Ren]

Sorry that I forgot to update the rst file when making changes to the
formats.
I will update the rst file if it is not already done.

Manman


On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Pan, Wei <wei.pan at intel.com> wrote:

> Yes, that is what I was mentioning. (I did not go through all of them.)
>
> There are also some minor alignment issues such as
> - basic, derived, composite type descriptors  (second fields)
> - subprogram descriptor (Function field)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 11:39 AM
> To: Pan, Wei; Manman Ren
> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] outdated debug metamata doc?
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Pan, Wei <wei.pan at intel.com> wrote:
> > Is anyone maintaining this page?
>
> ish. We sometimes forget to update it for a while.
>
> > http://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html#composite-type-descript
> > ors
> >
> >
> >
> > DIBuilder::createSubroutineType seems to generate metadatas with a
> > different format.
>
> composite types recently got one new field (a string unique
> identifier) & the template arguments field was made non-optional.
>
> Were there other differences you noticed/were referring to?
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130829/abc40f5a/attachment.html>