[PATCH] D99179: [RFC] [Coroutines] Enable printing coroutine frame in debugger if program is compiled with -g

[Chuanqi Xu via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

ChuanqiXu added a comment.

In D99179#3561883 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99179#3561883>, @dblaikie wrote:

> In D99179#3559342 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99179#3559342>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:
>
>> In D99179#3553124 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99179#3553124>, @probinson wrote:
>>
>>> @ChuanqiXu the use of DW_ATE_address was a surprise to our debugger; it is a very unusual encoding, and there are no other uses of it within LLVM.  I see there was no Release Note regarding the description of coroutine frames, which might have helped us notice.
>>
>> Oh, sorry for forgetting about the notes to users. Would try to add one.
>>
>>> More importantly, I see two places where DW_ATE_address is used in constructing the DWARF, and yet the tests do not look for it.  Please enhance the tests to cover these cases.  I can file an issue if you would like, to keep track of this.
>>>
>>> But to produce more common/likely-usable DWARF would be to use a pointer_type with no DW_ATE attribute (that's what Clang/LLVM produce for "void*" (DW_TAG_pointer_type with no attributes))
>>
>> So, it looks like it is not as easy as I imaged to add a test simply, is it? If it is the case, maybe we need an issue actually.
>
> What makes this hard to test? I'd expect putting "assert(false)" in whatever code is currently creating the DW_ATE_address type, testing which test fails, rerunning the test without the assertion and dumping its output should reveal the DW_ATE_address in its output that should be tested (& possibly changed to use a DW_TAG_pointer_type instead)

Sorry, I haven't looked into the details. I would try to look at it later.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D99179/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D99179