[PATCH] D60974: Clang IFSO driver action.

Mon Apr 29 21:18:35 PDT 2019

plotfi added a comment.

In D60974#1483480 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974#1483480>, @jakehehrlich wrote:

> In D60974#1483399 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974#1483399>, @plotfi wrote:
>
> > In D60974#1483265 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974#1483265>, @jakehehrlich wrote:
> >
> > > In D60974#1483240 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974#1483240>, @plotfi wrote:
> > >
> > > > Me and @compnerd had discussed a more abstracted format like this but decided it was best to just use the same names that are in the ELF already.
> > > >  Is there any compelling reason not to?
> > > >  As far as I understand, by having something like "Weak: true" is already harking back to ELF so why not stick to the same names?
> > > >
> > > > I think the !tbd-elf-v1 versioning can help with any changes or alterations we want to make along the way too.
> > > >  We did discuss the alignment field too.
> > >
> > >
> > > The format will have to be ELF specific but that doesn't mean we have to use the exact names. The benefit of this format is that you can only do the intended thing with it while anything more. This is also the format that matches most closely with .tbe which is a plus for consistency of this and integration of both tools into the llvm ecosystem. It's obvious how to merge my format into the ELFStub format. Your format has extraneous details that would never matter to the creation of the ELFStub format like the name of the section a symbol was defined in. Also I think much more of the compiler has to be considered to get section names right unless you're just recomputing them and then that's redundant for no gain.
> >
> >
> > We wanted to use the same names because its just a lot easier understand what is if you've already looked at the ELF header code (ie STT_FUNC vs Function).
>
>
> This is a reasonable opinion and was my opinion as well. But that isn't the way review went for .tbe and so now we have a responsibility to be consistent. This is bike shed level stuff. I could care less either way except for consistency.

Does llvm-elfabi consume your proposed Schema format? Has it landed yet?

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974