[llvm-dev] [DebugInfo][DWARFv5] should -gdwarf-5 imply usage of .debug_names?
Eric Christopher via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Feb 17 10:34:04 PST 2017
In my opinion all of accelerated access (pubnames, pubtypes, all of the
accelerator tables) should be optionally emitted, including the new
debug_names work. Basically we should let users produce the type of table
based on the consumer of the data rather than anything else - and default
to nothing because the tables are, as you gathered, rather consumer
Right now, as far as I know, no debugger implements the version of
debug_names recently standardized so there's an additional point to avoid
using it for now.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:00 AM Victor Leschuk via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hello all,
> I am implementing support for .debug_names section (which is introduced
> in DWARFv5 standard as replacement for .debug_pubnames and
> .debug_pubtypes). The question is: should usage of DWARF version 5 force
> generation of .debug_names instead of .debug_pubnames or we can make it
> just default behavior and provide user with the interface (cmd switch)
> to use other DWARFv5 features but generate old .debug_pubnames and
> .debug_pubtypes? The thing is that there can be potential DWARF consumer
> which doesn't fully support new standard. When we are talking about
> attributes, etc it will just cause warnings, but unknown section is much
> more serious issue.
> Best Regards,
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev