morehouse added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/CallGraphSection.rst:58 + +A type identifier may be repeated in different entries. The id value 0 is +reserved for unknown and used for indirect targets with unknown type. ---------------- Why would a type ID be repeated? ================ Comment at: clang/docs/CallGraphSection.rst:61 + +As of now, only supported format version is described above and has version +number 0. ---------------- ================ Comment at: clang/docs/CallGraphSection.rst:69 +The mapping from a type to an identifier is an ABI detail. +In the current experimental implementation, the identifier of type T is +computed as follows: ---------------- ================ Comment at: clang/docs/CallGraphSection.rst:148 + "foo", "int (char, void*)", "_ZTSFicPvE.generalized", "e3804d2a7f2b03fe" + "main", "int ()", "_ZTSFiE.generalized", "fa6809609a76afca" + ---------------- Why quotes around these table headers/entries? ================ Comment at: clang/docs/CallGraphSection.rst:160 +Notice that the current implementation may have seperate entries with the same +type id as above. + ---------------- Why is this? ================ Comment at: clang/docs/CallGraphSection.rst:174 + fa6809609a76afca 401130 + e3804d2a7f2b03fe 401110 + ---------------- Do we need to list functions that don't match any callsites (e.g., `main`)? ================ Comment at: clang/docs/CallGraphSection.rst:183 + 401130 40115b + 401170 4011b5 + ---------------- So this section is useful for constructing the call graph, but we don't really need it for stack trace reconstruction, right? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D105907/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D105907 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
