[PATCH] D54755: [DebugInfo] IR/Bitcode changes for DISubprogram flags

[Paul Robinson via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

probinson added a comment.

In D54755#1313064 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D54755#1313064>, @probinson wrote:

> In D54755#1312971 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D54755#1312971>, @aprantl wrote:
>
> > While I was updating some internal testcases I wondered: why is DIFlagPrototype not a DISPFlag? Does this flag make sense on something other than functions?
>
>
> Because I was not interested in moving existing flags from the old word to the new word in the first round.  There are others that probably apply only to subprograms:
>  NoReturn, MainSubprogram; probably Thunk, All CallsDescribed; maybe Trivial, Explicit.
>  Really we should do some kind of audit, and do a bulk move in one go so we can minimize the bitcode-upgrade pain.


One additional problem is that the existing flags are exposed as part of the public API, i.e. to front-ends, so we'll need to work out how to avoid Bad Stuff(tm) if we repurpose any existing flag bits.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D54755/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D54755