On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 23:13, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:05 AM Pavel Labath wrote:
>> Yes, the lack of an official extension space is unfortunate, but I
>> don't think this needs to be a blocker -- the spec also doesn't
>> include an DW_FORM extension space, but that ha
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 21:36, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:41 AM Pavel Labath wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, this sounds tricky, but it is actually good timing, because I
>> was just about to start working on DWP v5 in lldb. I was hoping that
>> would be an easy ride, but it looks
Yeah, this sounds tricky, but it is actually good timing, because I
was just about to start working on DWP v5 in lldb. I was hoping that
would be an easy ride, but it looks like things will get complicated.
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 18:53, David Blaikie wrote:
>
> (please add anyone who has a vested
Thank you all for the feedback. There seems to be general consensus that
enumerators should be present in the name index.
However, I am starting to have second thoughts about imported declarations.
While the entities they declare are (can be) global in the sense that they
are not (don't have to be
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 at 16:44, David Blaikie wrote:
> I'd say any case where a consumer couldn't actually rely on the table to
> do name resolution would be a bug - or at least something that needs to be
> seriously considered/discussed/figured out how the name table can be used
> in those situati
Hello dwarf-discuss,
over the last couple of months, I have been implementing DWARF v5
debug_names generation support in llvm. Implementation is not yet fully
finished, but I have reached a point where I can start testing the
generated index for completeness.
I wrote a tool (based on LLVM's DWARF
