ikudrin added a comment. In D75929#1920691 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75929#1920691>, @dblaikie wrote:
> > This is almost what you are doing right now -- the only difference is that > > the "internal" enum would no longer be internal -- it would actually match > > the on-disk format of a v5 index. This v5 enum would contain the official > > DWARFv5 constants as well as the new extensions we want to introduce for > > mixed 5+4 indices. > > Yep, this would be the direction I would suggest/encourage. It seems that if > the goal is to have one index in a DWP file (which seems reasonable) then all > future index versions will have to support column indexes all previous DWARF > sections - the DWARFvN enum can then be used to describe all the previous > versions as well. So, what are the differences with the last update, apart from that `DWARFSectionKind` is still internal? I believe we should not put the extensions into the official part before they are approved. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75929/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75929 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
