labath added a comment. In D75929#1928964 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75929#1928964>, @ikudrin wrote:
> In D75929#1926834 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75929#1926834>, @labath wrote: > > > (btw, is there a test case for the "unknown column" code path?) > > > Yes, it is checked in > `llvm/test/DebugInfo/X86/debug-cu-index-unknown-section.s`, which was added > in D75609 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75609> and then extended in D75668 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75668>. Got it. Thanks. > As for unknown columns in general, I believe they are not that important to > complicate the code too much. Before D75609 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75609>, `llvm-dwarfdump` just crashed when saw > them. `dwarfdump` prints some useless (for a user) error message. An unknown > column cannot be used by clients of the library because they do not know what > to do with it. Dumping is the only reason to support unknown identifiers, and > that should be done as simple as possible. If the current implementation > seems too complicated, we can consider, for example, dropping printing raw > IDs for unknown sections. Yeah, I agree that they are not very important, but it would be a pitty to lose them. OTOH, the lazily-initialized parallel array solution seems like it's more complicated that it should be. Maybe we drop the "lazy" part, rename it to `RawColumnKinds` and always store both? It's not like that's going to waste a bunch of memory, and it will be easier to understand (I hope). CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75929/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75929 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
