[PATCH] D62379: [DebugInfo] Stop undef fragments from closing non-overlapping fragments

Fri May 24 08:23:31 PDT 2019

dstenb marked 2 inline comments as done.
dstenb added inline comments.

================
Comment at: test/DebugInfo/X86/undef-fragment.ll:27-31
+; CHECK: DW_AT_location (0x00000000
+; CHECK-NEXT: [0x0000000000000001, 0x0000000000000015): DW_OP_constu 0x7b, DW_OP_stack_value, DW_OP_piece 0x4, DW_OP_constu 0x1c8, DW_OP_stack_value, DW_OP_piece 0x4
+; CHECK-NEXT: [0x0000000000000015, 0x000000000000001f): DW_OP_piece 0x4, DW_OP_constu 0x1c8, DW_OP_stack_value, DW_OP_piece 0x4
+; CHECK-NEXT: [0x000000000000001f, 0x0000000000000026): DW_OP_constu 0x315, DW_OP_stack_value, DW_OP_piece 0x4, DW_OP_constu 0x1c8, DW_OP_stack_value, DW_OP_piece 0x4)
+; CHECK-NEXT: DW_AT_name    ("s")
----------------
jmorse wrote:
> Is it OK to ditch the absolute addresses here? (Assuming that this isn't testing the address monoticity). I don't have any strong feeling, just the impression that this might be brittle to future codegen changes. (No big deal).
Good idea! I think it is okay to test the monoticity in the other attached test case. I generalized the address checks so that they just verify that the entries are placed directly after each other.

================
Comment at: test/DebugInfo/X86/undef-fragment.ll:51-53
+attributes #0 = { noinline nounwind uwtable }
+attributes #1 = { nounwind readnone speculatable }
+attributes #2 = { nounwind }
----------------
jmorse wrote:
> Can we ditch the attributes?
It should be okay to remove them I think. I kept dbg.value's attributes as I was not sure if it is customary to remove attributes from intrinsics.

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D62379/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D62379