[PATCH] Do not attach a debug location to code inserted by ARC / API for disabling DebugLocations

[Eric Christopher]

This is the code I was looking at FWIW:

#include <iostream>
#include <string>

using namespace std;

int foo(const char *bar) {
  cout << "foo" << "\n";
  std::string a(bar);
  cout << a << "\n";
  return 0;



}

-eric

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> Basically I was thinking earlier that this shouldn't be any different
> than the cleanups being emitted from a scope and you've only changed
> arc and blocks here. I understand that the code you have is very
> applicable to the use case of arc and blocks, but I want to make sure
> that it'll work for the rest of codegen as well.
>
> Also if you look the cleanups are currently associated with the end of
> the block, what's going on that we end up stopping on the particular
> arc code at the end of the block first? Is it perhaps not being
> associated with a statement that makes sense?
>
> This is why I asked, I think it should be consistent across all of the
> various language features. :)
>
> -eric
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 11:53 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 1:23 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, since you didn't respond to the rest, these are the similar bugs I
>>>>> was speaking about:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14498
>>>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14580
>>>>>
>>>>> with a little bit due to:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14610
>>>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14473
>>>>
>>>> Great! I was hesitant to answer to the rest before I knew more about those PRs :-)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Before we go forward with this I'd like to discuss the general
>>>>> applicability here for line information.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. My argument for the ARC case is that there is no sensible source line to associate calls to ARC runtime functions (that are mostly transparent to the programmer) with.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve updated the patches to address all comments I’ve got so far.
>> The patch removes line table entries associated with code inserted by ARC, on the basis that there is no useful line to point to.
>>
>> Apart from that, we should definitely come to a consensus on how closely we want to follow GCC’s line table output and/or the GDB testsuite’s expectations. I think we might be able to discuss this in a thread separate from the review of this patch (especially since there is no GCC example to follow for ARC)?
>>
>> thanks for all the input so far,
>> adrian
>>
>>
>>
>>