[PATCH] Option to suppress the DWARF entries DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name and DW_AT_linkage_name.

[Robinson, Paul]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvm-commits-
> bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Christopher
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 3:09 PM
> To: Pieb, Wolfgang
> Cc: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Option to suppress the DWARF entries
> DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name and DW_AT_linkage_name.
> 
> ================
> Comment at: lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfUnit.cpp:45
> @@ +44,3 @@
> +static cl::opt<bool>
> +SuppressLinkageNames("suppress-dwarf-linkage-names", cl::Hidden,
> +                     cl::desc("Suppress the DWARF
> DW_AT_(MIPS_)?linkage_name entries"),
> ----------------
> dblaikie wrote:
> > I believe we're trying to move away from surfacing command line flags in
> this way for user-facing features. (see Chris Bieneman's work).
> >
> > I'm not sure what the right answner is these days - this could be a flag
> on the compile_unit metadata - in which case it could be properly
> respected under LTO (if one CU was built with the flag and one built
> without it, it'd be possible/practical/easy to respect those differences,
> emitting linkage name for one CU and omitting it in another).
> It's definitely a code gen option and so should go on a code gen option
> struct. That said, we're probably getting enough of them that a sub struct
> for debug info would be better.
> 
> i.e. I don't see why we'd want to handle adding or subtracting on a CU
> basis and thus need to put it on the metadata.

Per-CU is not important. Working with LTO is important. I didn't think the
codegen options showed up in the IR/metadata? Happy to be wrong there.
--paulr

> 
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D5510
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits