[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D45170: Cleanup DWARFCompileUnit and DWARFUnit in preparation for adding DWARFTypeUnit

Jan Kratochvil via lldb-commits lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Apr 6 10:32:41 PDT 2018

On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 18:58:27 +0200, Davide Italiano wrote:
> Yes, I definitely agree. It's clear this needs more discussion, so I
> don't think it's reasonable if we revert this for now and
> reconsider.

I have reverted this https://reviews.llvm.org/D45170 by:

> I'll also take a look at the interfaces in LLVM to get a better sense
> of what should be done. If nobody does this, I'll probably get to the
> revert by the end of the day.

I admit my DWARFUnit was in part alignment with LLVM's DWARFUnit (so that
there is one abstract superclass) but at the same time even more
differentiating it (as LLVM has no DWARFPartialUnit and DWARFTypeUnit will
need another intermediate superclass which I call DWARFSomeNameUnit in that
commit text above).

I was sure glad with my DWARFUnit https://reviews.llvm.org/D40466 approval to
be able to commit my DWZ support on top of it making LLDB usable on Red Hat
systems. But I understand LLDB code unification with LLVM is more important.
The DWZ patchset now waits on https://reviews.llvm.org/D40467 approval.
Greg did not like it much so I am now working on new DWARFOneFileOffset being
type-incompatible to dw_offset_t so that both types can be used safely without
accidentally interchanging each other; instead of my current relying on unsafe
type-compatible "dw_offset_t offset" vs. "dw_offset_t file_offset" parameters

Maybe LLDB should really reuse LLVM DWARFUnit first and I will implement DWZ
already on top of LLVM's DWARFUnit? I have no idea myself now how complex task
is the reuse of LLVM DWARFUnit. For the LLVM DWARFUnit reusal this Greg's
commit would be sure fine; just completely unrelated to why+how I made this
DWARFUnit split myself.


More information about the lldb-commits mailing list