[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] First cut of PowerPC(64) support in LLDB.

[Justin Hibbits]

>>! In D5988#9, @clayborg wrote:
> Everything looks good except there is no need to add "eCore_ppc_powerpc" as we already have "eCore_ppc_generic", and no need to add "eCore_ppc64_powerpc64" as we already have "eCore_ppc64_generic". Feel free to keep the new "powerpc" and "powerpc64" string entries in the ArchSpec table, but I still use the eCore_ppc_generic and eCore_ppc64_generic core definitions.

Thanks, Greg.  I was also hesitant about the ArchSpec table, because of this duplication.  The only reason I added these was to appease the static_assert that follows the table.  Adding two new entries required adding two new enum items as well.  If changing the assert to '>=' from '==' is sufficient, I'll go ahead with that and remove the new definitions.  Otherwise, do you have any suggestion on how best to handle this?

http://reviews.llvm.org/D5988