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 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
