[PATCH] D16440: [ThinLTO] Link in only necessary DICompileUnit operands

David Blaikie via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jan 28 14:30:51 PST 2016

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-commits <
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> tejohnson added a comment.
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16440#338695, @dblaikie wrote:
> > It's a little unclear from your description - are you importing /any/
> types as definitions? Or are all imported types being imported as
> declarations? (I think the latter would be good/correct/minimal/simpler)
> I think so. At least for composite types. Are there any cases, other than
> from the retainedTypes list on the compile unit, where a DICompositeType
> node is referenced by its address rather than by UUID?

Try types without a mangled name - I suppose one example might be something

void b();
int main() {

namespace {
struct anon {
void bimpl(anon) {
void b() {

If bimpl is imported into a (presumably after b is imported into a) then
you'll see a type without a mangled name... what you should do with this is
perhaps a difficult question. A debugger's going to have a hard time
identifying these types (or even the two 'bimpl' functions) as the same
when they're in two different object files & flagged as being "local"

- Dave

> I haven't seen any, which means that we would not import any while mapping
> in metadata on imported functions/instructions. In that case they are only
> imported as declarations with this patch, since they are only imported by
> the new linkImportedCompileUnit routine.
> Note that there are DIDerivedTypes that are referenced from imported
> functions (e.g. via the subprogram type array) and therefore mapped in when
> the functions and instructions are imported and mapped. Is there a
> distinction between definition and declaration for these types?
> ================
> Comment at: test/Transforms/FunctionImport/funcimport_debug.ll:18
> @@ +17,3 @@
> +
> +; Confirm that the enums didn't get pulled in to the imported compile unit
> +; as it isn't needed here, but ensuring that retainedTypes immediately
> follows
> ----------------
> dblaikie wrote:
> > It might be clearer to match the retained types list (assuming all the
> types go in there, which I think they do - at least the ones using mangled
> names, etc) and then match all  the types referenced from there, then you
> wouldn't need the CHECK-NOTs which are a bit brittle here anyway (if types
> are emitted in a different order, the CHECK-NOTs wouldn't catch them -
> they'd only catch the case where the type is emitted between the two
> surrounding CHECK'd types)
> >
> > Just a thought. (& could check that things like vtableHolder, etc,
> aren't emitted in the declarations you're interested in)
> Good idea. I already found and fixed some issues where my existing
> CHECK-NOTs were not behaving as expected. Will do that.
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D16440
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160128/c59b3c51/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-commits mailing list