> On Mar 11, 2019, at 3:46 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > Given that: > > 1) LLVM doesn't produce DWARF64 > 2) GCC has to be patched to produce DWARF64 > 3) LLDB's support is only partial but is untested and appears to be missing > major pieces in order for it to work > 4) It's of questionable use as there are several viable alternatives > > Would it be reasonable to propose a patch removing the incomplete support > from LLDB? We can always add it back later when someone is ready to really > support and test it properly, and the history in the repository will show > what code would need to be changed to get back to at least where the support > is today (which again, appears to not fully work). > > If we can go this route, it makes merging the two DWARF parsing > implementations quite a bit simpler
I'm supportive of removing DWARF64 support from LLDB. -- adrian > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:33 PM Adrian Prantl <apra...@apple.com > <mailto:apra...@apple.com>> wrote: > > > > On Mar 11, 2019, at 12:45 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev > > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > > > I want to ask what the status of DWARF64 in LLDB is. I can tell there's > > some support for it by reading the code, but it seems to have zero test > > coverage so it's not clear to me that anyone depends on it. For example, I > > know that clang and LLVM will not even generate DWARF64, so if anyone is > > depending on it, they must be debugging programs built with some other > > toolchain. > > AFAIR, Apple's tools only generate/support DWARF32. After implementing > type-uniquing in dsymutil we didn't see any individual .dSYM bundles that > came even close to the 4GB watermark. > > > > > I'm looking at unifying LLDB's DWARF parser with LLVM's, and this is the > > biggest functional difference I can see. > > > > Certainly we can improve LLVM's support for consuming DWARF64, but it's a > > question of priorities. If nobody is actively depending on this, then > > taking a regression here could be on the table and then re-prioritizing > > adding back support in the future if / when we actually need it. > > -- adrian
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
