[llvm-dev] llvm-dwarfdump stats for inlined functions

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 10:28 AM <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:
>
> > > >When I wrote D58849 I wasn't sure if all the inlined functions would
> > have abstract origins or not; that was one of the things I wanted to check
> > on.
> > >
> > > OK, as Paul mentioned in the previous mail, it might be better if we
> > calculated the "#inlined functions without abstract origin".
> >
> > If we're keeping the stat anyway, I suspect it's probably not worth
> > the hassle of renaming/reving the format/etc. But I don't have strong
> > opinions on it.
>
> If there's a database somewhere, probably not worth messing with the
> schema.  For reporting to humans, I'd have a slight preference for
> what I said, but it's not a big deal.

Yep.

Also: Even though these cases can legitimately be emitted, I'm not
sure they're worth tracking the difference (. I'd still be marginally
in favor of removing the extra stat (removing the stat that tracks
"without abstract_origin" and renaming the other one). We don't track
"subprograms with DW_AT_specification" or various other properties,
for instance.