jakehehrlich added a comment. In D60974#1483399 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974#1483399>, @plotfi wrote:
> In D60974#1483265 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974#1483265>, @jakehehrlich > wrote: > > > In D60974#1483240 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974#1483240>, @plotfi wrote: > > > > > Me and @compnerd had discussed a more abstracted format like this but > > > decided it was best to just use the same names that are in the ELF > > > already. > > > Is there any compelling reason not to? > > > As far as I understand, by having something like "Weak: true" is already > > > harking back to ELF so why not stick to the same names? > > > > > > I think the !tbd-elf-v1 versioning can help with any changes or > > > alterations we want to make along the way too. > > > We did discuss the alignment field too. > > > > > > The format will have to be ELF specific but that doesn't mean we have to > > use the exact names. The benefit of this format is that you can only do the > > intended thing with it while anything more. This is also the format that > > matches most closely with .tbe which is a plus for consistency of this and > > integration of both tools into the llvm ecosystem. It's obvious how to > > merge my format into the ELFStub format. Your format has extraneous details > > that would never matter to the creation of the ELFStub format like the name > > of the section a symbol was defined in. Also I think much more of the > > compiler has to be considered to get section names right unless you're just > > recomputing them and then that's redundant for no gain. > > > We wanted to use the same names because its just a lot easier understand what > is if you've already looked at the ELF header code (ie STT_FUNC vs Function). This is a reasonable opinion and was my opinion as well. But that isn't the way review went for .tbe and so now we have a responsibility to be consistent. This is bike shed level stuff. I could care less either way except for consistency. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
