shchenz added a comment. In D99250#2650561 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99250#2650561>, @probinson wrote:
> In D99250#2649507 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99250#2649507>, @Esme wrote: > >> Thx! @aprantl The motivation of the patch came from the crash of tag name >> mismatching when using DBX under AIX. And modifying the debugger doesn't >> seem to make sense? > > A consumer should not crash when it sees an unexpected value. This is > clearly a DBX problem. It should have some fallback, for example it could do > the same thing it would do if the language attribute was missing entirely. Yeah, I totally agree with this! A consumer should be friendly enough to handle any unexpected input. The crash is anyhow not a good response. Back to the DWARF info issue, will it be an issue that a DWARF 5 language value be emitted when the compiling option explicitly specifies the DWARF 3 version? This time it is `DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_14`. We plan to check the DWARF info is generated under the correct DWARF version, what if we meet some other issues? A not improper example (NOT exist, just an example) is what if we generate constant class DW_AT_high_pc attribute under -gdwarf-3? I think we should fix this right? For DWARF 3, DW_AT_high_pc attribute should always be a relocatable address. What you guys think? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99250/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99250 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
