> Anyway, the issue is that the PS4 targets don't emit DW_AT_linkage_name > attributes in the debug info, but we are still emitting an index entry > with > the mangled names. This caused the verifier to complain. > > Two interesting questions follow from this: > 1. (mainly for Paul, I guess) Should we fix the debug_names generator to > not emit the linkage name index entry for PS4 targets?
I think there's a flag controlling this which is not the triple, but yes if the DIEs don't have linkage names then I think the index also shouldn't. > > 2. (for everyone) Is this verifier check actually valid? This depending on > the interpretation of the last (non-normative) paragraph of Section > 6.1.1.1 > (*). One way of reading it is that a producer is allowed to insert > additional entries into the name index. Another would be that we can also > insert additional names for existing entries. This is interesting here > because this is exactly what the the template stripping proposal would do > (add extra names to existing entries). If we don't remove that check, it > will cause the verifier to complain again. > > regards > pavel > > (*) The intent of the above rules is to provide the consumer with some > assurance that looking up an unqualified name in the index will yield all > relevant debugging information entries that provide a defining declaration > at global scope for that name. A producer may choose to implement > additional rules for what names are placed in the index, and may > communicate those rules to a cooperating consumer via an augmentation > string, described below. I read it as, if we emit additional entries, we should emit an augmentation string that says so. If the augmentation is superseded by a spec change in DWARF 6, I'm sure everybody can accommodate that too. --paulr _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
