Teach llvm-dwarfdump and lldb about DWARF tags and attributes for pointer authentication.
Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
llvm/include/llvm/BinaryFormat/Dwarf.def | ||
---|---|---|
228 | This section of the file seems to be in numerical value order, so this tag needs to be after the SUN* tags. Has the value been finalised, and is the APPLE bit of this line correct (it might be, I'm not all that familiar with the tags)? It seems odd putting it here when we already have another block of LLVM tags (well one tag) further down which surely should be extended, rather than adding a second block? | |
603–609 | Is APPLE actually correct here? These are LLVM attributes after all. Labelling them as coming from APPLE vendors seems wrong? |
llvm/include/llvm/BinaryFormat/Dwarf.def | ||
---|---|---|
228 | Yes, the values are finalized in the sense that this is what we've been generating for several years and the goal of this change is to make dwarfdump and friends understand existing binaries. I can move it into the LLVM block, but that doesn't fix the ordering problem. Do you want me to create another LLVM block between SUN and ALTIUM? | |
603–609 | I'm fine either way. I went with Apple as the vendor to match the LLVM_apinotes which is another thing that's specific to our platform. |
llvm/include/llvm/BinaryFormat/Dwarf.def | ||
---|---|---|
228 |
I think that would be the right thing to do. | |
603–609 | I'll let someone more familiar with the DWARF stuff decide, as I'm a bit out of the loop these days. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't some copy/paste error or similar going on. |
llvm/include/llvm/BinaryFormat/Dwarf.def | ||
---|---|---|
228 | sounds good to me. |
This section of the file seems to be in numerical value order, so this tag needs to be after the SUN* tags.
Has the value been finalised, and is the APPLE bit of this line correct (it might be, I'm not all that familiar with the tags)? It seems odd putting it here when we already have another block of LLVM tags (well one tag) further down which surely should be extended, rather than adding a second block?