search for: dw_at_apple_objc_complete_type

...why the current representation has the Objective-C methods outside of the structs. One reason might be that an interface's implementation can define more methods than are visible in its public interface in the header file, but we already seem to be aware of this and mark the implementation with DW_AT_APPLE_objc_complete_type. I also am not sure that this is the *only* reason for the objc accelerator table. But I'd like to learn. My observation was based on studying lldb code. The only place where the objc table is used is in the AppleDWARFIndex::GetObjCMethods function, which is called from SymbolFileDWARF::GetObj...

...why the current representation has the Objective-C methods outside of the structs. One reason might be that an interface's implementation can define more methods than are visible in its public interface in the header file, but we already seem to be aware of this and mark the implementation with DW_AT_APPLE_objc_complete_type. I also am not sure that this is the *only* reason for the objc accelerator table. But I'd like to learn. >> >> My observation was based on studying lldb code. The only place where >> the objc table is used is in the AppleDWARFIndex::GetObjCMethods >> function, which is...

...why the current representation has the Objective-C methods outside of the structs. One reason might be that an interface's implementation can define more methods than are visible in its public interface in the header file, but we already seem to be aware of this and mark the implementation with DW_AT_APPLE_objc_complete_type. I also am not sure that this is the *only* reason for the objc accelerator table. But I'd like to learn. -- adrian > As far as the .debug_names size goes, I should also point out that the > binary in question was built with -fno-limit-debug-info, which isn't a > default setup on...

...esentation has the Objective-C methods outside of the structs. > One reason might be that an interface's implementation can define more > methods than are visible in its public interface in the header file, but we > already seem to be aware of this and mark the implementation with > DW_AT_APPLE_objc_complete_type. I also am not sure that this is the *only* > reason for the objc accelerator table. But I'd like to learn. > > >> > > >> My observation was based on studying lldb code. The only place where > > >> the objc table is used is in the AppleDWARFIndex::GetObjCM...

> On Jun 13, 2018, at 11:18 AM, Jonas Devlieghere via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Pavel, > >> On Jun 13, 2018, at 6:56 AM, Pavel Labath <labath at google.com <mailto:labath at google.com>> wrote: >> >> Hello again, >> >> It's been nearly six months since my first email, so it's a good time >> to

...why the current representation has the Objective-C methods outside of the structs. One reason might be that an interface's implementation can define more methods than are visible in its public interface in the header file, but we already seem to be aware of this and mark the implementation with DW_AT_APPLE_objc_complete_type. I also am not sure that this is the *only* reason for the objc accelerator table. But I'd like to learn. >>>>>> >>>>>> My observation was based on studying lldb code. The only place where >>>>>> the objc table is used is in the AppleDWARFI...