dblaikie added a comment. In D76801#1991904 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76801#1991904>, @labath wrote:
> David's example does work with gdb without -Wl,--gdb-index (the member > variable is shown), presumably due to the aforementioned fuzzy matching. > However, it does not work if gdb-index is enabled, nor with lldb (as lldb is > always very index-oriented and assumes equality everywhere). That is > definitely not ideal, though I'm not sure that means about this patch. This > is definitely not the only difference in the formatting of DW_AT_names of > templates. For example, `template<typename T> operator<<(T, T)` will come out > as `operator<< <A>` with gcc, but as `operator<<<A>` with clang (with or > without this patch). > OTOH, differences in type names are more likely to cause problems than is > the case for functions/operators. That is concerning. Any idea if that's only with lld's gdb-indexx implementation, or also gold's? This isn't the only naming divergence between GCC and Clang, though, so if gdb-index doesn't support any divergence, that's a problem... (I think non-type template parameters diverge too, perhaps? well, GCC 6 used to print "foo<3u>" (for an unsigned non-type template parameter) and clang/more recent GCC versions just use "foo<3>" now, for instance - enums, GCC uses foo<(EnumType)0> whereas Clang uses foo<enumeratorName> if it's named and foo<3> if it's unnamed)) Differences in function names could manifest as differences in type names - due to local types nested inside functions, but they're less likely/highly unlikely to have a decl/def resolution between CUs, so maybe nested types are less problematic. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D76801/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D76801 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
