+lldb-dev On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 11:01 PM Petr Hosek via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Two major factors are compatibility with a broad range of platforms (our > toolchain is already being used by developers on Linux, macOS, Windows) and > permissive license (our goal is to provide a permissively licensed, > self-contained toolchain with a complete set of binary tools that support > debuginfod). > > We are also thinking about some potential future extensions that would > make sense for the LLVM implementation. For example, we are planning on > adopting GSYM as the symbolization format and we would like to > support GSYM in debuginfod in the future. > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 10:40 AM Frank Ch. Eigler via llvm-dev < > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi - >> >> As a developer of elfutils/debuginfod, I read with interest your >> intent to build an llvm reimplementation of the debuginfod stack. >> Best of luck, enjoy! >> >> I'm curious whether there were any indications that the existing code >> base couldn't be used due to problems of some sort. AIUI, licensing >> compatibility with LLVM is moot for out-of-process binaries like the >> debuginfod server and the debuginfod-find client. -L symlink loops >> are a SMOP. Was mach-o support the only real showstopper? >> >> - FChE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-...@lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
