werat added a comment. In D94077#2481942 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D94077#2481942>, @labath wrote:
> This suffers from the same problem as the other patch, where the other index > classes (apple_names and debug_names) will essentially never be able to > implement this feature. (Unless they re-index the dwarf themselves, that is, > but this would defeat the purpose of having the index in the first place.) I'm not sure I completely understand. Why does changing the `manual_dwarf_index` mean that the other index classes can't ever implement this feature? If, let's say, `debug_names` decides to support enum constants, then its data layout should be changed to either include enumerators as globals, or add a new section, or something else. Then it can be properly handled in LLDB too (maybe changing the way `manual_dwarf_index` works too to keep things consistent). As I understand, `manual_dwarf_index` can be changed anytime, since we're building it ourselves. Do I misunderstand how these indexes work and interact with each other? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D94077/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D94077 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
