dwblaikie wrote: > I am fine with telling people what to do and giving them a golden path to > what is easiest for our debuggers. And I will suggest to everyone that they > use `.debug` and `.dwp`, but if we want to only support this, this leaves the > downloading of the `.debug` file requiring a rename from `.dwp` to > `.debug.dwp` in order for it to work for people. So then everything in this > patch should be supported to allow loading the `.debug` file with a `.dwp` > like we will encourage people to do.
Not sure I follow - one of the scenarios mentioned in this patch is "lldb loads <exe> which is stripped but has .gnu_debuglink pointing to <exe>.debug with skeleton DWARF and needs to find <exe>.debug.dwp" I don't think we should support that, for instance - we should load `<exe>.dwp` in that case. > It would also be nice if we do have a single `.debug` file that has debug > info only, it would be nice to allow it and the `.dwp` file to be combined > into a single file. There is no reason for them to be separate anymore once > we have `a.out` stripped, it would be nice to only require `a.out.debug` > which contains the `.dwp` sections inside of it already instead of requiring > people to have two files needed for debug info. Maybe? I figure once you've got to download one file, two isn't a substantial imposition... - it'd be a bit weird having a DWP file and a .debug file mashed up together, but can't see any reason it wouldn't work - with the logic of "check if this program has a cu_index in it, if so, treat it as a dwp, otherwise look for <exe>.dwp, otherwise look for the dwos". https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81067 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
