aganea added a comment. In D43002#2061162 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D43002#2061162>, @echristo wrote:
> First question: > > Since split dwarf has to do some similar things can we not use the same > support? This seems to be a lot of changes for this. > > Second question: > > and if we can't use the same support can we make split dwarf use this? Having > two separate methods for passing everything around is a bit painful. To answer both questions, I tried to converge but the uses are slightly different. In one case (DWARF) the `-split-dwarf-file/-split-dwarf-output` flags are passed down almost blindly to the back-end, whereas for COFF there's more logic to determine where the file should be emitted (see `CompilerInstance::createOutputFile`). We always need full path names in `S_OBJNAME`, whereas (it seems) split DWARF can handle relative paths (for example see `llvm-mc -split-dwarf-file`). I think the purpose is also different: the .dwo is for immediate debugger consumption, whereas the path in `S_OBJNAME` seems to be used more like a global identifier. Please let me know if you feel this could be done differently. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D43002/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D43002 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
