[PATCH] D79190: llvm rejects DWARF operator DW_OP_lit[1-31] in IR

[Alok Kumar Sharma via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

alok added a comment.

In D79190#2015441 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79190#2015441>, @aprantl wrote:

> > when this stuff was added, do you recall if there was any particular goal around that? Was lit0 added for some specific reason/separate from adding litN? Or was it just an oversight? And/or do you have thoughts on which way this should go today?
>
> As I said yesterday, I think it would be better to aim for a canonical representation in LLVM to make transformations easier. A quick grep for `DW_OP_lit0` in `llvm/lit` shows no current use of this, so we could remove it in favor of DW_OP_constu 0.
>  Doing some archeology, lit0 was added by @vsk in https://reviews.llvm.org/D48676 but that code must have been removed since. We could easily write a bitcode upgrade to canonicalize existing occurrences of lit0.


Should we do upgrade to other lits (1-31) also in place of rejecting them ?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D79190/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D79190