LGTM!

I'm not familiar with Mach-O object files. I can only give some minor suggestions on your codes.

Currently, yaml2obj doesn't support generating split dwarf object files. I can help add support for some of the dwo sections but it needs several weeks? I guess. I proposed D120184 for adding support for emitting/dumping the .debug_str.dwo section.

In D113552#3194383, @Esme wrote:

Thank you so much for your reviewing. @jhenderson @Higuoxing
Do you have more comments for this patch?
Btw. there are 2 accepted patches (D113825 and D114434) depends on this patch.

The GCC doc mentions that the "-ggnu-pubnames" option is only useful with a linker that can produce GDB@ index version 7.

In D112151#3075510, @gbreynoo wrote:

I was looking to do this in YAML but I don't think there is support for debug_types?

LGTM.

The code change generally looks good to me. But please make the error messages consistent, see my inline comments.

Hi, @jhenderson, could you please help @juchem push his change since I haven't pushed to LLVM repo for a time.

In D109534#2999856, @juchem wrote:

@Higuoxing the test that's failing on CI sounds unrelated to this patch. Can you help me figure out if that's the case? I'm unfamiliar with LLVM CI.
Also, I am not authorized to merge. If everything looks fine, who can help me with that?

LGTM, thanks!

You are able to drop llvm::. Otherwise, LGTM.

The codes generally looks good to me.

In D107048#2921510, @jhenderson wrote:

In D107048#2921507, @djtodoro wrote:

In D107048#2921504, @djtodoro wrote:

Can we make the test by using YAML (by hard-coding the DWARF)?

An example of DWARF YAML test is llvm/test/tools/llvm-dwarfdump/X86/stats-scope-bytes-covered.yaml.

@Higuoxing may be able to assist with this, if he's around - he did a fair bit of the yaml2obj DWARF support.

LGTM.

LGTM, thanks!

This patch looks great! I think the tests have covered everything.

As you see, the original DWARF parser is buggy and lacking of tests, so we haven't employed it in elf2yaml. You might need to modify the parser before adding it to elf2yaml. Could you please split this patch into several small patches and add some tests for it? Test cases for DWARF of elf2yaml are in llvm/test/tools/obj2yaml/ELF/DWARF (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/main/llvm/test/tools/obj2yaml/ELF/DWARF).

LGTM, once @sfertile 's comments are addressed. Thanks!

LGTM, thanks!

LGTM. Thanks!

LGTM, thanks! But please wait until another reviewer is happy about this change :)

LGTM

Only minor suggestions, otherwise LGTM. But please give somebody else a chance to review this change :)

In D97186#2628382, @jhenderson wrote:

@Higuoxing added more support to yaml2obj last year for DWARF emission via YAML. Maybe it would be best to wait on basic XCOFF yaml2obj support to be finished, add DWARF emission support to that, and then use yaml2obj to generate the DWARF output as required?

Also, the pre-merge checks claim your tests are failing.

Finally, how does this actually add support for llvm-dwarfdump + XCOFF? It's not particularly obvious to me, but I'm not all that familiar about what llvm-dwarfdump requires for this support.

I only have one inline comment. Otherwise LGTM :)

LGTM. Thanks!

LGTM, thanks!

• Test the default opcode_base field and the standard_opcode_lengths array of DWARFv2-DWARFv4 (DWARFv5 isn't supported yet).
• Add missing comment.

Use Version to determine the default opcode_base and standard_opcode_lengths fields.

• Make getStandardOpcodeLengths() return the standard_opcode_lengths according to the latest DWARF spec by default.
• Add one test case where the opcode_base is greater than 13.
• Address some inline comments.

Update.

Split commands.

Append --strict-whitespace option.
Use {{ }} to match more (2) spaces.

Thanks!

Address review comments.

In D88048#2286589, @dblaikie wrote:

maybe slightly long test case - could do this with the CU DIE itself? (perhaps a case where hand-crafted/substantially hand-modified assembly is OK, because it can be made /so/ simple - or maybe yaml2obj dwarf support is adequate for this use case?)

In D87878#2281189, @jhenderson wrote:

I might be missing it, but do you have direct testing showing that the default for IncludeDirs\Files\Opcodes is an empty output, when the output is written? I think it's important that this is tested.

Check the DWARF: tag.

Address comments.

Address review comments.

In D87179#2270098, @aadsm wrote:

@Higuoxing I didn't realize the DWARF section was completely new until I read your GSOC project. Thanks a lot for this work otherwise it would have been impossible for me to create the tests I needed for my other diff!