[PATCH] D44384: [DEBUGINFO] Add -no-dwarf-debug-ranges option.

[David Blaikie via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

dblaikie added a comment.

(& the same question as the other change, about whether this should be a per-CU flag)



================
Comment at: test/DebugInfo/X86/no_debug_ranges.ll:4-8
+; DISABLED-NOT: {{DW_AT_ranges|.debug_ranges}}
+
+; .debug_ranges section must be emitted by default
+; CHECK-DAG: DW_AT_ranges
+; CHECK-DAG: .debug_ranges
----------------
Probably worth testing what the range of this CU is rendered as, given that there are several functions in several sections, yet ranges cannot be used.

What do existing tools operating under this constraint do? (should the DWARF perhaps only describe code in the first section - rather than having (I assume this is what LLVM will produce with this patch) descriptions of several functions in several sections, but with a CU range that only covers one of those contiguous section ranges? (this might be invalid DWARF? Inaccurate ranges))


================
Comment at: test/DebugInfo/X86/no_debug_ranges.ll:10-44
+; Function Attrs: noinline nounwind optnone uwtable
+define void @_Z2f1v() #0 section "a" !dbg !7 {
+entry:
+  ret void, !dbg !10
+}
+
+; Function Attrs: noinline nounwind optnone uwtable
----------------
What's interesting about these 4 sections/6 functions, more than having two sections/functions? (trying to understand what nuances are being tested here - perhaps a comment in the test case would be helpful to explain the motivation)


Repository:
  rL LLVM

https://reviews.llvm.org/D44384