[PATCH] D8822: Proposed fix for PR23076 (conditional branch debug line info)

[David Blaikie via cfe-commits]

dblaikie added a comment.

Fair question on overloaded operators... Taking the original code:

   1: int main() {
   2: if (
   3: tr()
   4: &&
   5: tr()
   6: )
   7: func();
   8: if (
   9: fa()
  10: &&
  11: tr()
  12: )
  13: func();
  14: }

& making tr/fa return a user defined type with a boolean member and provide op&& and op|| overloads that test the bool member in the obvious way.

Clang (with patch)
3, 5, 4, 5, 7
9, 11, 10, 11, 14

So that's somewhat problematic - we shouldn't visit 11 at all. (but we are today, as is GCC... so maybe NBD?)

GCC 4.8:
4, 2, 7
10, 8, 14

Clang ToT:
3, 5, 4, 3, 7
9, 11, 10, 9, 14

I think using the end of the condition is problematic/confusing. I'm not sure why this doesn't show up in the primitive value version, but it seems like it should (& we should end up stepping to the end of the condition (which would be the close paren of the function call, not the close paren of the 'if ()'))

Perhaps we should use the close paren of the 'if ()' but tehre's no source location for that readily available - I guess the way to get there is to navigate to the next token from the end of the condition expression... ?


http://reviews.llvm.org/D8822