[PATCH] D123319: Change how we handle auto return types for lambda operator() to be consistent with gcc

[David Blaikie via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

dblaikie added a comment.

(@probinson as someone I've disagreed with about this before)

Personally I think there's limited value in expressing 'auto' in DWARF at all - we could omit function declarations if the return type is not known (undeduced auto) and wouldn't lose much - basically treating them the same as templates that aren't instantiated yet. (& I believe Sony does this for all functions anyway - only including them when they're defined, not including an exhaustive list of member functions in class definitions)

Does anyone have particular DWARF consumer features they have built/would like to build that benefit from/require knowing that a function was defined with an `auto` return type?

Previously discussed/debated here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70524


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319