On Apr 15, 2013, at 11:53 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Adrian Prantl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Eric, >> >> On Apr 8, 2013, at 1:23 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> So, since you didn't respond to the rest, these are the similar bugs I >>> was speaking about: >>> >>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14498 >>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14580 >>> >>> with a little bit due to: >>> >>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14610 >>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14473 >> >> Great! I was hesitant to answer to the rest before I knew more about those >> PRs :-) >> >>> >>> Before we go forward with this I'd like to discuss the general >>> applicability here for line information. >> >> Sure. My argument for the ARC case is that there is no sensible source line >> to associate calls to ARC runtime functions (that are mostly transparent to >> the programmer) with. >> I’ve updated the patches to address all comments I’ve got so far. The patch removes line table entries associated with code inserted by ARC, on the basis that there is no useful line to point to. Apart from that, we should definitely come to a consensus on how closely we want to follow GCC’s line table output and/or the GDB testsuite’s expectations. I think we might be able to discuss this in a thread separate from the review of this patch (especially since there is no GCC example to follow for ARC)? thanks for all the input so far, adrian
0001-Provide-an-API-to-temporarily-suppress-DebugLocation.patch
Description: Binary data
0001-Use-a-more-idiomatic-way-to-disable-debug-locations.patch
Description: Binary data
0002-Do-not-attach-a-line-number-to-ARC-specific-cleanup-.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
