> Yes it looks like our patches are at cross-purposes. > > I assume that your patch gets the desired effect because there is now a DIE > that > points to the subprogram's generated code? That's not good for me, because if > there's a class method definition DIE, it insists on having a declaration DIE > too. > I'm not sure whether the same is true for standalone functions. > > I wonder if there is a way we could produce an artificial subprogram DIE, but > then > have LLVM not actually emit it to the DWARF. That is, suppress the excess > DWARF > in LLVM rather than in Clang. If lives long enough to build the address > ranges (and > also .debug_line?) it would meet your needs, and then if it doesn't actually > get emitted > to .debug_info, it would meet my needs. >
I'm more than happy to revert r158009, I originally added it to reduce the amount of debug information since often people would not be trying to add break points or debug through an artificial function. Alexey's patch and motivation, however, lead me to believe that this was originally incorrect as we may want a backtrace with information and line numbers that includes artificial functions like global constructors. Either of you have an argument against reverting it? -eric _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
