rastogishubham wrote: Hi @dwblaikie
> Also - maybe compare to GCC's naming? (could be nice to converge, but I'm not > sure that's possible/might be in tension with matching demangling) We actually did compare to what GCC does, and you can see with this [compiler explorer link](https://godbolt.org/z/b6K43oazb) that GCC doesn't add the location to the DW_AT_name cc @Michael137 for the example (thanks for providing that!) > Oh, and did you hit some particular problem with this varied naming > situation? It's not immediately obvious to me that this would be a problem Yes, we had an issue with dsymutil, we saw varifiction error in the DWARFVerifier when trying to verify the contents of the Accelerator tables. Since dsymutil does type uniquing similar to LTO. > Any chance we could use a naming that matches/is similar to the mangling? > Including the lambda numbering - could help ensure the names are unique-ish? Correct me if I am wrong, but if we use the mangling, whats the difference between the DW_AT_name and the DW_AT_linkage_name? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159592 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
