sfertile added inline comments.
================ Comment at: llvm/lib/MC/MCContext.cpp:165 + case MCObjectFileInfo::IsXCOFF: + // TODO: Need to implement class MCSymbolXCOFF. + break; ---------------- jasonliu wrote: > JDevlieghere wrote: > > See previous comment. > It is certain that we will need MCSymbolXCOFF. But before we run into cases > where we actually need a MCSymbolXCOFF, we could use the generic MCSymbol > first for XCOFF platform. So I don't want to put a llvm_unreachable here. Would it make sense to add an llvm_unreachable now, and the first patch that actually uses an MCSymbol stubs out the class and removes the unreachable? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58930/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58930 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
