[llvm-dev] RFC: DI: Stop preserving types from dead functions

[Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev]

> On 2015-Sep-01, at 16:07, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
> Way back in r107027, we started preserving type information of local
> variables of functions that are optimized away.  This seemed strange to
> me so I dug into the history: apparently, this is so that ctfconvert can
> find these types (so they can be exposed in dtrace).
> 
> E.g., this commit made it so that for this C code:
> 
>     static void foo(void) { struct X { int b; } v; }
> 
> we always get the type information for foo.v, even if foo() is optimized
> away.
> 
> I came across this when trying to reverse the direction of the IR's
> DICompileUnit/DISubprogram links.  r107027 effectively forces us to
> hold onto subprogram definitions that describe deleted functions. 
> 
> Aside: there's a CR currently underway on llvm-dev about whether we should (or should not) emit declarations for functions that have been optimized away (neglecting local variables/types/etc, we currently emit a function declaration for a function even if it gets inlined and optimized away - it's unclear if that's the right call (given that we don't emit declarations for functions that are never called, I'm not sure there's a strong argument to be made to keep these, but I'm undecided)). So if you're interested in removing optimized-away subprogrcams, you might want to weigh in on that thread.

I can't find the thread :(.  Can you give me the subject line?

I'm guessing it's something along the lines of deleting this block:
--
    if (!D && !includeMinimalInlineScopes())
      // Lazily construct the subprogram if we didn't see either concrete or
      // inlined versions during codegen. (except in -gmlt ^ where we want
      // to omit these entirely)
      D = getOrCreateSubprogramDIE(SP);
--
in DwarfCompileUnit::finishSubprogramDefinition()?  That was something
I was planning on bringing up next...

> For my money I'd apply a similar logic to those types: we don't emit any number of types we know during IRGen are unused, so I'm not sure there's a good reason to keep them if we discover they're unused a bit later.

Yeah, it seems like the logic should be pretty similar.

>  
> This
> seems quite weird to me :/.
> 
> I'm talking to people internally and hoping to find that we just don't
> care anymore.  Even if we do, perhaps shoving these types into
> 'retainedTypes:' in `DICompileUnit` (only if -gkeep-all-types or some
> such) will solve the problem for the ctfconvert use case (without
> burdening others).
> 
> While I sort that out... does anyone else rely on this?  How?  Why?
> 
> (The attach patch effectively reverts r107027.)