search for: d8506

While I've already posted reviews for the initial patches for this (see http://reviews.llvm.org/D8506 and http://reviews.llvm.org/D8599), the grapevine suggests I should post a lengthier description of my intent for the "debugger target." The idea was prompted by a suggestion from Eric Christopher, and I'm running with it. Various bits of the DWARF we produce are conditional on the...

...to emit the equivalent (non-standard) GNU operator. >>>> >>>> It would be semantically more meaningful to base decisions like this on >>>> whether we expected the debugger to be X or Y or Z. Therefore I've >>>> proposed (http://reviews.llvm.org/D8506) a "debugger tuning" option that >>>> will make the reasoning behind these choices more obvious, and >>> ultimately >>>> give users a way to control the tuning themselves, when the platform's >>>> default isn't what they want. (I'll...

...lent (non-standard) GNU operator. > >>>> > >>>> It would be semantically more meaningful to base decisions like this on > >>>> whether we expected the debugger to be X or Y or Z. Therefore I've > >>>> proposed (http://reviews.llvm.org/D8506 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D8506>) a "debugger tuning" option that > >>>> will make the reasoning behind these choices more obvious, and > >>> ultimately > >>>> give users a way to control the tuning themselves, when the platform's > &g...

...ect: Re: [LLVMdev] [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] What does "debugger tuning" mean? > > @Adrian, "I don't think there was a driver patch" actually yes there is, see below. > @Eric, "Does the patch do all of this?" Basically, yes, see > http://reviews.llvm.org/D8506 The target-based default for the tuning parameter is done by code at the top of the DwarfDebug constructor; this really simplified supporting an option from the tool command lines (CommandFlags.h) and passing in a value from Clang. Given that the use of LLDB seems to be more aligned with OS than t...

...lent (non-standard) GNU operator. > >>>> > >>>> It would be semantically more meaningful to base decisions like this on > >>>> whether we expected the debugger to be X or Y or Z. Therefore I've > >>>> proposed (http://reviews.llvm.org/D8506 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D8506>) a "debugger tuning" option that > >>>> will make the reasoning behind these choices more obvious, and > >>> ultimately > >>>> give users a way to control the tuning themselves, when the platform's > &g...

...t* be > > used, we need to emit the equivalent (non-standard) GNU operator. > > > > It would be semantically more meaningful to base decisions like this on > > whether we expected the debugger to be X or Y or Z. Therefore I've > > proposed (http://reviews.llvm.org/D8506) a "debugger tuning" option that > > will make the reasoning behind these choices more obvious, and > ultimately > > give users a way to control the tuning themselves, when the platform's > > default isn't what they want. (I'll have a follow-up patch expos...

...v at cs.uiuc.edu) Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] What does "debugger tuning" mean? @Adrian, "I don't think there was a driver patch" actually yes there is, see below. @Eric, "Does the patch do all of this?" Basically, yes, see http://reviews.llvm.org/D8506 The target-based default for the tuning parameter is done by code at the top of the DwarfDebug constructor; this really simplified supporting an option from the tool command lines (CommandFlags.h) and passing in a value from Clang. Given that the use of LLDB seems to be more aligned with OS than t...

...d to emit the equivalent (non-standard) GNU operator. >>>> >>>> It would be semantically more meaningful to base decisions like this on >>>> whether we expected the debugger to be X or Y or Z. Therefore I've >>>> proposed (http://reviews.llvm.org/D8506) a "debugger tuning" option that >>>> will make the reasoning behind these choices more obvious, and >>> ultimately >>>> give users a way to control the tuning themselves, when the platform's >>>> default isn't what they want. (I'll...

...he standard operator; for targets where GDB *might* be used, we need to emit the equivalent (non-standard) GNU operator. It would be semantically more meaningful to base decisions like this on whether we expected the debugger to be X or Y or Z. Therefore I've proposed (http://reviews.llvm.org/D8506) a "debugger tuning" option that will make the reasoning behind these choices more obvious, and ultimately give users a way to control the tuning themselves, when the platform's default isn't what they want. (I'll have a follow-up patch exposing the tuning option to the Clang...

...he standard operator; for targets where GDB *might* be used, we need to emit the equivalent (non-standard) GNU operator. It would be semantically more meaningful to base decisions like this on whether we expected the debugger to be X or Y or Z. Therefore I've proposed (http://reviews.llvm.org/D8506) a "debugger tuning" option that will make the reasoning behind these choices more obvious, and ultimately give users a way to control the tuning themselves, when the platform's default isn't what they want. (I'll have a follow-up patch exposing the tuning option to the Clang...