On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Adrian Prantl via lldb-dev <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > 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. >
Sounds good to me as well. We may need to add it in the next few years, but simplifying interfaces for now sounds entirely reasonable. -eric > -- adrian > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:33 PM Adrian Prantl <apra...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Mar 11, 2019, at 12:45 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev >> > <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 _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
