omjavaid added a comment. In D96458#2624962 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96458#2624962>, @labath wrote:
> Thanks. This looks much better, but there is still one thing which bugs me > about the register info constructor. Currently, there are three paths through > that constructor: > > 1. when we don't have any fancy registers (this is the original one) > 2. when we have just SVE (added with the sve support) > 3. when we have pauth et al. (added now) > > Do we need all three of them? Is there anything which makes SVE special that > it deserves its own register info array? Could it be just another "dynamic" > register set like the other features? (If that's true, I might consider also > removing the first code path, making it just a special case of an empty set > of dynamic features.) > > I also have some inline comments, but there are just simple stylistic issues, > I hope. I agree with your about SVE being dynamic I just didn't go for the change because I was being a little conservative about changing existing functionality. But I think If we look at the changes now making SVE dynamic seems right thing to do. Let me make the change and update this rev. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96458/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96458 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
