labath added a comment. In D76801#1993337 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76801#1993337>, @dblaikie wrote:
> In D76801#1991904 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76801#1991904>, @labath wrote: > > > David's example does work with gdb without -Wl,--gdb-index (the member > > variable is shown), presumably due to the aforementioned fuzzy matching. > > However, it does not work if gdb-index is enabled, nor with lldb (as lldb > > is always very index-oriented and assumes equality everywhere). That is > > definitely not ideal, though I'm not sure that means about this patch. This > > is definitely not the only difference in the formatting of DW_AT_names of > > templates. For example, `template<typename T> operator<<(T, T)` will come > > out as `operator<< <A>` with gcc, but as `operator<<<A>` with clang (with > > or without this patch). > > OTOH, differences in type names are more likely to cause problems than is > > the case for functions/operators. > > > That is concerning. Any idea if that's only with lld's gdb-indexx > implementation, or also gold's? I was using gold for my initial test. However, the same thing happens with lld too... > This isn't the only naming divergence between GCC and Clang, though, so if > gdb-index doesn't support any divergence, that's a problem... It becomes a gdb-index problem because with an index the debugger will do a (hashed?) string lookup and expect the string to be there. If the strings differ, the lookup won't find anything. In the no-index scenario, the debugger has to trawl the debug info itself, and so it has some opportunities to do fuzzy matching. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D76801/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D76801 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
