aprantl added a comment.
> Is there some place (bug, discourse thread, etc) where the broader direction
> is discussed? I want to checkin on the design decisions/alternatives without
> fragmenting this across multiple reviews/losing context/etc?
No, I believe that all the relevant discussion happened in this review. While
there is a separate review for an LLDB implementation, there is no general
direction discussion there, it's just implementing a DWARF feature.
> (specifically - this started out with the trampoline attribute, then switched
> to this transparent idea (perhaps based on my feedback? Also other feedback?
> I'd like to know more about how that change in direction happened, what the
> tradeoffs were, etc - I don't think my suggestion alone was probably enough
> to make this direction clearly the right one (nor clearly the wrong one)),
> etc)
It was partially based on your feedback, but also on @arphaman pointing out
that the `DW_AT_trampoline("call_target")` implementation wouldn't be able to
deal with the jump target being a virtual function call. So @augusto2112
landed on implementing the "flag variant" of `DW_AT_trampiline` instead. This
is also an existing DWARF feature, albeit not yet supported by LLVM.
> & there was some tangent about DWARF v COFF too, which I wouldn't mind
> weighing in on, but feel like it's all a bit fragmented, so not sure where
> all the discussions are/how to keep track of them.
That was also in this review; @aaron.ballman pointed out that it would be best
if new Clang attributes weren't targeting only DWARF, though I believe this
request may run into some hard limitations of what CodeView/PDB can support.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146595/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146595
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
