[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb] Add more ways to find the .dwp file. (PR #81067)

[David Blaikie via lldb-commits]

dwblaikie wrote:

> I am fine with telling people what to do and giving them a golden path to what is easiest for our debuggers. And I will suggest to everyone that they use `.debug` and `.dwp`, but if we want to only support this, this leaves the downloading of the `.debug` file requiring a rename from `.dwp` to `.debug.dwp` in order for it to work for people. So then everything in this patch should be supported to allow loading the `.debug` file with a `.dwp` like we will encourage people to do.

Not sure I follow - one of the scenarios mentioned in this patch is 

"lldb loads <exe> which is stripped but has .gnu_debuglink pointing to <exe>.debug with skeleton DWARF and needs to find <exe>.debug.dwp"

I don't think we should support that, for instance - we should load `<exe>.dwp` in that case.

> It would also be nice if we do have a single `.debug` file that has debug info only, it would be nice to allow it and the `.dwp` file to be combined into a single file. There is no reason for them to be separate anymore once we have `a.out` stripped, it would be nice to only require `a.out.debug` which contains the `.dwp` sections inside of it already instead of requiring people to have two files needed for debug info.

Maybe? I figure once you've got to download one file, two isn't a substantial imposition... - it'd be a bit weird having a DWP file and a .debug file mashed up together, but can't see any reason it wouldn't work - with the logic of "check if this program has a cu_index in it, if so, treat it as a dwp, otherwise look for <exe>.dwp, otherwise look for the dwos".



https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81067