[PATCH] D33655: [Cloning] Take another pass at properly cloning debug info

[David Blaikie via llvm-commits]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:17 AM Adrian Prantl via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> aprantl accepted this revision.
> aprantl added a comment.
> This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
>
> Thanks Keno, this appears to be a far better approach. The only question
> that remains is whether / how to update the linkage name of the cloned
> DISubprogram. But I don't think that this needs to be solved in this patch.
>

*nod* Agreed.

Speculating rampantly: I wonder if it'd make sense to remove the linkage
name from definitions and use the actual Function's linkage name (hmm, that
doesn't work for inlining, though - so maybe it does have to be duplicated
when the function is cloned - but could then have a verifier/invariant that
it matches the Function if there is one). And then even allow the mangled
name to differ between declaration and definition - and put an extra
DW_AT_linkage_name on the definition if it's different from the declaration.

*shrug* Don't really know. The right answers may require thinking a fair
bit about the coroutines debug info as a (perhaps somewhat unique) example
of cloning, etc.


>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D33655
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20170530/b6a34103/attachment.html>