kwk added a comment. In D75750#1971446 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750#1971446>, @labath wrote:
> In D75750#1967019 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750#1967019>, @fche2 wrote: > > > >> So it might be good to have the SymbolVendors use one or more > > >> SymbolServer plug-ins. > > > > > > I don't believe we have anything that would require all modules in a > > > given target (or whatever) to use the same symbol vendor type. [...] > > > > Just for clarity, is someone proposing to undertake such a rework of that > > infrastructure? It sounds like this is becoming a prerequisite for > > Konrad's patch, but if no one's actually doing it, that means Konrad's work > > is on hold indefinitely. Is that the intent? > > > Yes, I believe that is becoming a prerequisite. I believe Konrad is willing > to try to implement that, but I have advised him to hold on a bit until the > exact details are hashed out. @labath, I'm not really keen on implementing the architectural changes that you mentioned because it will take ages when I do that. And the cross-platform bit makes me nervous as well. Initially I hoped we might be able to integrate my work and improve on the architecture later. Then we're not fighting on too many fronts at the same time? Shall we maybe move the discussion about the architectural changes to lldb-dev instead of this patch? @clayborg @labath @jingham @jankratochvil ? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
