dblaikie added a comment. > 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. All we'd do is store a "what's the highest DWARF version we have seen in parsing all the inputs (either input CUs in .dwo files, or input cu_indexes in .dwp files)" and use that number to determine what version index we produce (& knowing that those inputs can only contain the limited columns expressable in that DWARF/index version, so we won't have undescribable columns in our internal representation when we're going to emit the index). 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
