[PATCH] Option to suppress the DWARF entries DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name and DW_AT_linkage_name.

[Eric Christopher]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Robinson, Paul
<Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvm-commits-
>> bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Christopher
>> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 3:09 PM
>> To: Pieb, Wolfgang
>> Cc: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Option to suppress the DWARF entries
>> DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name and DW_AT_linkage_name.
>>
>> ================
>> Comment at: lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfUnit.cpp:45
>> @@ +44,3 @@
>> +static cl::opt<bool>
>> +SuppressLinkageNames("suppress-dwarf-linkage-names", cl::Hidden,
>> +                     cl::desc("Suppress the DWARF
>> DW_AT_(MIPS_)?linkage_name entries"),
>> ----------------
>> dblaikie wrote:
>> > I believe we're trying to move away from surfacing command line flags in
>> this way for user-facing features. (see Chris Bieneman's work).
>> >
>> > I'm not sure what the right answner is these days - this could be a flag
>> on the compile_unit metadata - in which case it could be properly
>> respected under LTO (if one CU was built with the flag and one built
>> without it, it'd be possible/practical/easy to respect those differences,
>> emitting linkage name for one CU and omitting it in another).
>> It's definitely a code gen option and so should go on a code gen option
>> struct. That said, we're probably getting enough of them that a sub struct
>> for debug info would be better.
>>
>> i.e. I don't see why we'd want to handle adding or subtracting on a CU
>> basis and thus need to put it on the metadata.
>
> Per-CU is not important. Working with LTO is important. I didn't think the
> codegen options showed up in the IR/metadata? Happy to be wrong there.

You're wrong. :)

Anything that's function dependent will show up on a function.
Anything CU dependent should show up on a CU in the metadata.

That said, this is likely a whole module (or post-link module in the
case of LTO) code generation time option and should show up
accordingly.

-eric

> --paulr
>
>>
>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D5510
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits