[llvm-dev] DW_OP_implicit_pointer design/implementation in general

[Jeremy Morse via llvm-dev]

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 8:38 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:
> As far as LLVM semantics are concerned, the implicit pointer doesn't seem to be that much different from any other implicit values (such as constants) to me. Why do you think that it needs to be represented differently inside of LLVM IR?

I think it's almost entirely that the first argument to dbg.value will
change from  "Always ValueAsMetadata" to "Maybe metadata, maybe
Value". I get the feeling that allowing more options here will come
out as more conditions / branching elsewhere, in a way we could try to
avoid.

However it's a mild opinion with a certain amount of hand waving; and
not one that anyone else seems to share, so I'm happy to drop that
part of the discussion.

--
Thanks,
Jeremy