shafik added a comment.
In D120836#3355167 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120836#3355167>, @labath wrote:
> I think it's reasonable to be able to refer to the dwarf constants from
> within the dwarf plugin via their base names alone. The implementation -- a
> top-level `using namespace llvm::dwarf` -- is not reasonable, but that's
> because the plugin is very old, and completely unnamespaced.
>
> For the newer plugins, we've started putting them in a sub-namespace of
> lldb_private, which means they cannot be accidentally referenced from the
> core code, but they can easily reference (without qualification) symbols
> defined in the core libraries.
>
> If we put the dwarf plugin into a (e.g.) `lldb_private::dwarf` namespace,
> then I think it would be ok to put a `using namespace llvm::dwarf` into that
> namespace, even in a header -- because those symbols would only be visible to
> symbols which are in that namespace.
>
> In other words, I'd have the dwarf plugin do what the minidump plugin is
> doing (disclaimer: I wrote most of that plugin).
>
> Anyway, I'm not married to that approach, but that's what I would do...
If I understand correctly you are proposing that I do:
namespace lldb_private {
namespace dwarf {
using namespace llvm::dwarf;
}
}
in `lldb/include/lldb/Core/dwarf.h` and then in the `.cpp` files:
using namespace lldb_private;
using namespace dwarf;
That sounds reasonable to me.
Then I would revert the changes to the minidump files, since they are already
using this strategy.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120836/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120836
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
