labath wrote: The current setup makes sense to me, but I guess that's expected as I'm the one who created it. I can also imagine something like what you propose, but it doesn't seem like a clear win to me. These objects are owned by SymbolFileDWARF, and we probably don't want to have it do the work of juggling these (it has a lot on its plate already), so it would probably have to be a separate object (basically another implementation of the "dwarf index" interface). That would be a lot of boilerplate (though maybe we could use some template trickery to reduce it). We'd also need to come up with a less ad-hoc way communicate which things are supposed to be indexed by who, but we also wouldn't want to make it too generic (== more code), since there are basically only three index configurations we care about (and these could easily be reduced to two).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102123 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
