On Dec 17, 2013, at 5:38 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Greg Clayton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > b) -flimit-debug-info is worth, at a guess, somewhere between 1 and 5%. > > > This vtable optimization is worth closer to 20%. That's /serious/ bloat > > > to consider accepting. > > > > I don't consider bloat being something that helps us to completely define a > > type that is going to be use when debugging so we can show the entire type > > and its member variables to the user. > > > > How do you know which types are going to be needed by the user? What about > > types that are only declared but not defined in this translation unit? > > ("struct foo; foo *f;") > > I will say again what I have said before: if I need to re-create a type form > DWARF, then I want all the information I need. In order to re-create an > opaque "struct foo" for a pointer or reference, a declaration is fine. If I > need to recreate a class, I want all of the base class info. > > And if someone dereferences that pointer in a debugger expression? Then I have no problems because I was able to create a pointer type that clang can deal with. You won't see any data inside of it, but it is a legal AST type. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
