On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Adrian Prantl <apra...@apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:32 AM, Davide Italiano <dccitali...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 1:02 AM, Jan Kratochvil via Phabricator >> <revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: >>> jankratochvil added a comment. >>> >>> I disagree with this patch as `DWARFUnit` was a lightweight wrapper for >>> `DWARFPartialUnit`. Now I will have to create some new lightweight >>> superclass like `DWARFAbstractUnit`. >>> My patch prepared it for: >>> >>> DWARFUnit->DWARFCompileUnit >>> DWARFUnit->DWARFPartialUnit >>> >>> And I planned the type units should be implemented like: >>> >>> DWARFUnit->DWARFSomeNameUnit->DWARFCompileUnit >>> DWARFUnit->DWARFSomeNameUnit->DWARFTypeUnit >>> DWARFUnit->DWARFPartialUnit >>> >>> This patch just reused + changed my abstraction for a completely different >>> purpose and I will have to reimplement it again under a different name. Or >>> what do you suggest? >>> >> >> As there's some disagreement on how to proceed forward, we can >> probably revert this for now and start a discussion. >> You can probably do it yourself. > > Just please make sure that whatever variant we end up deciding upon, the > interface must become more like llvm's DWARF* classes, even if that means > changing the llvm hierarchy to become more like LLDB's if need be. The end > goal should be to make LLVM's DWARF classes good enough to be used in LLDB so > we don't need to maintain two implementations. > > -- Adrian
Yes, I definitely agree. It's clear this needs more discussion, so I don't think it's reasonable if we revert this for now and reconsider. I'll also take a look at the interfaces in LLVM to get a better sense of what should be done. If nobody does this, I'll probably get to the revert by the end of the day. Best, -- Davide _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
