jankratochvil added a comment. In D73206#1949516 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D73206#1949516>, @labath wrote:
> The main thing I don't like about the current state is the introduction of > user_id_t into the index classes. It forces a bunch of conversions for a flow > that really should be simple. > > I guess that was to avoid main-cu-ificating the DIERef class? Yes, that was the purpose of D74637 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74637>. To have two different small (8 bytes) DIE references, one with MainCU (chosen to be `user_id_t`) and one without MainCU (chosen to be `DIERef`). > I think (and I think I've already said this) the right thing to do here would > be to change the index classes to be callback-based. Then the memory > footprint is out of the equation (no vector<DIERef>, and the indexes can > return a "main cu pair" or something of sorts, as that is what their callers > will convert this to anyway. OK, I can make an unrelated trunk-based refactorization for `DWARFIndex` descendants to use callbacks. Internally `ManualDWARFIndex` and `DebugNamesDWARFIndex` need to store also MainCU so `user_id_t` looks to me as their best choice for their internal storage. It is true `AppleDWARFIndex` does not need MainCU so that would prevent its `DIERef`->`user_id_t` conversion, that is the only win there I can see. One could also refactor `AppleDWARFIndex` even more to use `user_id_t` natively. Would then be there still a win with the callback? Or is the callback preferred unrelated to any `DIERef` vs. `user_id_t`? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D73206/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D73206 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
