- User Since
- Oct 15 2012, 2:12 PM (335 w, 3 d)
Oh, and as far as dwarf aware linking I'd arguably prefer a separate tool ala dsymutil or dwz rather than incorporating it into the linker. I do agree that such a tool is incredibly useful and should be part of our ongoing development plan around debug info.
& happy to be wrong here too - if we end up prototyping a "function units" equivalent of type units & seeing what the size overhead is, etc. (it'd be less problematic than type units at least - since there's no need for much/any DWARF to reference a function definition from elsewhere in the DWARF (unlike a type and its members, which all need to be referenced from elsewhere))
Per my reply to Paul I don't think this is the right way of approaching this (and neither is the linker parsing the dwarf :)
Tue, Mar 19
This is fine with me, Rui?
Mon, Mar 18
The duplication is a little sad, but I don't have a lot of ideas on how to remove that in the near term so LGTM. Dave, any other concerns on your end?
Thu, Mar 14
Tue, Mar 5
I'd probably prefer something around giving targets an interface rather than this... but that's a lot more work :)
Wed, Feb 27
Tue, Feb 26
Mon, Feb 25
Wed, Feb 20
One more comment:
Tue, Feb 19
Feb 19 2019
Feb 18 2019
Feb 6 2019
Jan 31 2019
Jan 29 2019
Jan 22 2019
The way this works is feeling pretty awkward, but I think updating that will be small in contrast to getting debug working for nvptx.
Jan 14 2019
If whitequark is happy I am :)
Jan 2 2019
Jan 1 2019
This seems like the sort of thing that you can just commit in the future.
Dec 31 2018
That's fine, it's just not the state of the world and we should support compiling appropriately.
I don't want to pick a fight, but there can be used exactly same argument to defend pulling libgcc here.
OK, that makes sense. I'm not a huge fan of how this set of code looks, but it also seems unfair to require you to extensively refactor it for this.
Is something passing compiler-rt in as a -r link output or something?
Dec 30 2018
Dec 21 2018
Dec 18 2018
Thanks for the split! LGTM.
Thanks for the split. LGTM!
Thanks so much for the split!
FWIW once nemanja and Masoud are happy then this can go in.
Dec 13 2018
Looks like this stalled with no feedback outside of Chandler and I.
Dec 11 2018
LGTM. I'm quite a bit happier with this now. Thanks for going through the back and forth.
Dec 5 2018
LGTM still when everything else is approved.
Dec 4 2018
Dec 3 2018
Nov 28 2018
Nov 26 2018
Nov 13 2018
I can sign off on this.
This looks better to me. I've got an inline request for some elaboration and you might want to let chandlerc comment, but otherwise OK with me.
Nov 12 2018
Nov 9 2018
I think this is the right direction, couple comment:
Nov 8 2018
Once we get everything else handled this is fine :)
It'd be really great if we could handle all of this in the mips backend rather than in general code.
The llvm backend patch here has discussion around debug info kinds that we should iron out first.
Some inline comments - I'm still not happy with some of how this patch is and would like to see some changes and elaborations of how we split things out. Mostly it's bikeshed naming things, but the current state is a bit more confusing than without.
Some drive by comments again. Be good to get @ributzka to take a final look.
I have no other bikeshed colors here. :)
Naming sounds ok to me :)
Nov 6 2018
Nov 5 2018
Oct 30 2018
Random drive-by bikeshed:
Oct 29 2018
Go ahead and commit for them.
Oct 24 2018
All of the target specific stuff looks fine to me. I'm going to defer to rnk about the windows side of things and aaron for the attributes.
Oct 23 2018
Oct 19 2018
LGTM. This code needs a lot of cleanup, but that's for another day.