This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state "Needs
Revision".
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL333222: DWARFDIE split out to DWARFBaseDIE (authored by
jankratochvil, committed by ).
Herald added a subscriber: llvm-c
clayborg requested changes to this revision.
clayborg added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
ok, just rename DWARFFirstDIE to DWARFBaseDIE and this is good to go.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47275
___
lldb-commits mailing list
labath added a comment.
Yes, Base is fine. Thank you.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47275
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
clayborg added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47275#285, @labath wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47275#254, @clayborg wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47275#1110772, @labath wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think a name like `DWARFUnitDIE` is a good one bacause it would
>
labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47275#254, @clayborg wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47275#1110772, @labath wrote:
>
> > I don't think a name like `DWARFUnitDIE` is a good one bacause it would
> > make a weird `is-a` relationship (a DWARFDIE represetning a DW_TAG_v
clayborg added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47275#1110772, @labath wrote:
> I don't think a name like `DWARFUnitDIE` is a good one bacause it would make
> a weird `is-a` relationship (a DWARFDIE represetning a DW_TAG_variable is
> certainly **not** a "unit DIE" yet you could assign i
labath added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47275#215, @clayborg wrote:
> I like DWARFFirstDIE. Pavel should ok this too.
I said what I think of DWARFFirstDIE. I'd like to hear from you what you think
about the is-a issue I mentioned.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47275
_
clayborg accepted this revision.
clayborg added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I like DWARFFirstDIE. Pavel should ok this too.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47275
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
htt
labath added a comment.
Looks like we missed each other, but all I said about DWARFUnitDIE applies to
DWARFFirstDIE as well. I doesn't have to be called "basic" die, but the reason
I proposed that name is that it does not sound weird when you say that any die
"is a" basic die. Other possibility
labath added a reviewer: aprantl.
labath added a comment.
I don't think a name like `DWARFUnitDIE` is a good one bacause it would make a
weird `is-a` relationship (a DWARFDIE represetning a DW_TAG_variable is
certainly **not** a "unit DIE" yet you could assign it to a `DWARFUnitDIE&`).
We coul
jankratochvil updated this revision to Diff 148360.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47275
Files:
source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/CMakeLists.txt
source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFDIE.cpp
source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFDIE.h
source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFFirstDIE.cpp
source/Plug
jankratochvil marked 5 inline comments as done.
jankratochvil added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47275#1110065, @clayborg wrote:
> Marked things that don't belong in DWARFBasicDIE.
OK, sorry, thanks for reviewing it.
> Also DWARFBasicDIE doesn't really explain what it actually is. M
clayborg added a comment.
Marked things that don't belong in DWARFBasicDIE.
Also DWARFBasicDIE doesn't really explain what it actually is. Maybe we should
rename this DWARFUnitDIE? DWARFTopDIE? DWARFRootDIE?
Comment at: source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFBasicDIE.h:49
+
+
jankratochvil created this revision.
jankratochvil added reviewers: labath, clayborg.
Herald added subscribers: JDevlieghere, aprantl, mgorny.
As Pavel Labath said in https://reviews.llvm.org/D46810 this is new
`DWARFBasicDIE` to be used for `DWARFUnit::GetUnitDIEOnly()`. This patch is
only mech
14 matches
Mail list logo
