On Apr 8, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Adrian Prantl <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:30 AM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:06 AM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:40 AM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Apr 5, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Adrian Prantl <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Patch for review, mostly for the IRBuilder::DisableDebugLocations() part. >>>>> >>>>> Do not attach a debug location to code inserted by ARC -- >>>>> it would create a spurious line table entry at the closing } of the scope. >>>> >>>> Is this a problem? Just that we don't want "next" to stop here? >>> >>> Pretty much. It's analogous to the same when we're looking at >>> cleanups, etc. I think this is going into the realm of "opinions on >>> behavior" here. >> >> Is 'next' driven completely by line table information, or is there some >> way in DWARF to more explicitly say "this is a point that 'next' should >> stop at"? > > The line table contains "is_stmt" flags to mark interesting locations where > the debugger may stop. According to the DWARF standard it's not necessarily a > source-language statement though. Function calls inside of expressions or the > "," operator are probably good examples of where the debugger might stop even > though its not technically a statement.
Okay. I'm okay with following your judgment here about the right way of modeling this. John. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
