You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
MCP#737 proposes how to mangle symbols in a way that establishes a policy that tooling (such as GDB, perf, or valgrind) can then follow.
@michaelwoerister has summarized on Zulip the options we have to establish such a policy. The idea is to choose the option that causes the least annoyances downstream.
T-compiler would like to make a policy decision where it is decided to either do the mitigation proposed by the MCP or we accept that new features will have an impact on tooling until it catches up.
@michaelwoerister is working on a prototype implementation (see comment). When ready, the meeting can take place so the team has something to reason about.
About this issue
This issue corresponds to a meeting proposal for the compiler team steering meeting. It corresponds to a possible topic of
discussion. You can read more about the steering meeting procedure
here.
Comment policy
These issues are meant to be used as an "announcements channel"
regarding the proposal, and not as a place to discuss the technical
details. Feel free to subscribe to updates. We'll post comments when
reviewing the proposal in meetings or making a scheduling decision.
In the meantime, if you have questions or ideas, ping the proposers
on Zulip (or elsewhere).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Meeting proposal info
Summary
UPDATE: hackmd for meeting at https://hackmd.io/@michaelwoerister/SynKEaIB0.
MCP#737 proposes how to mangle symbols in a way that establishes a policy that tooling (such as GDB, perf, or valgrind) can then follow.
@michaelwoerister has summarized on Zulip the options we have to establish such a policy. The idea is to choose the option that causes the least annoyances downstream.
T-compiler would like to make a policy decision where it is decided to either do the mitigation proposed by the MCP or we accept that new features will have an impact on tooling until it catches up.
@michaelwoerister is working on a prototype implementation (see comment). When ready, the meeting can take place so the team has something to reason about.
About this issue
This issue corresponds to a meeting proposal for the compiler team
steering meeting. It corresponds to a possible topic of
discussion. You can read more about the steering meeting procedure
here.
Comment policy
These issues are meant to be used as an "announcements channel"
regarding the proposal, and not as a place to discuss the technical
details. Feel free to subscribe to updates. We'll post comments when
reviewing the proposal in meetings or making a scheduling decision.
In the meantime, if you have questions or ideas, ping the proposers
on Zulip (or elsewhere).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: