dblaikie added a comment. > It doesn't make sense to require a stable hash algorithm for an internal > cache file.
It's at least a stronger stability requirement than may be provided before - like: stable across process boundaries, at least, by the sounds of it? yeah? & then still raises the question for me what about minor version updates, is it expected to be stable across those? It'd be a bit subtle to have to know when to go and update the lldb cache version number because this hash function has changed, for instance. It might be more suitable to have lldb explicitly request a known hash function rather than the generic one (even if they're identical at the moment) so updates to LLVM's core libraries don't subtly break the hashing/cache system here. (I would guess there's no cross-version hash testing? So it seems like such a change could produce fairly subtle breakage that would slip under the radar fairly easily?) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122974/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122974 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits