felipepiovezan 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).
I guess what I was proposing was more about deleting code than adding it. We
must always have at most _one_ index, but we have a lot of code allowing for
the situation of two indices (manual & {apple, dwarf}).
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
