bin: prefer symbol table names over DWARF names #332
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
philipc
force-pushed
the
function-symbol
branch
from
1e0f1c1
to
bb34383
Compare
Prefer the symbol table over the DWARF name because: - the symbol can include a clone suffix - llvm may omit the linkage name in the DWARF with -g1 These two cases are tested in testoutput/dwarf/cold and testoutput/dwarf/base-clang-g1. This also fixes the case where the DWARF includes an inlined function with no name, and we wrongly used the symbol table. I don't have a test case for this.
philipc
force-pushed
the
function-symbol
branch
from
bb34383
to
ee4a8fd
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Prefer the symbol table over the DWARF name because:
These two cases are tested in testoutput/dwarf/cold and testoutput/dwarf/base-clang-g1.
This also fixes the case where the DWARF includes an inlined function with no name, and we wrongly used the symbol table. I don't have a test case for this.
Partial fix for #324 and #326