compnerd added a comment. @jakehehrlich - unfortunately, removing the attributes on the sections will make the content look different with `nm` which is something we do need to appear proper for consumers of the interface libraries. Versioning has a number of problems inherent to it (unfortunately, its the closest to multi-level namespaces in ELF). I think that getting something in tree and iterating on it is far better than continuing to argue over this in the dream of something that unifies the TAPI approach and this approach. The section names are relevant (you can add attributes to put symbols into alternate sections and you can have section relative relocations). I think that you are loosing fidelity in the final output which is sufficient for your needs, but I think that there are places where the full fidelity can be needed.
This currently works and allows us to generate the interface library which means that this is actually further than what you are proposing still. Is there something technical that this is doing incorrectly or breaking something? Otherwise, this really does seem like it is devolving into a bike shedding argument that isn't really going anywhere. This is not a large amount of code and there is backing to maintain it, so it is not an issue of "this is adding un-maintained complexity" either. Just like the LLVM APIs, this can/will evolve. I don't see why this needs to be set in stone from the initial implementation. There are use cases which can come up which require reworking the solution. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D60974 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
