probinson added a comment. In D68117#1711714 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68117#1711714>, @dblaikie wrote:
> In D68117#1711154 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68117#1711154>, @probinson wrote: > > > (@dblaikie Aside regarding noreturn, the original DWARF proposal was for a > > debugger wanting to know a given function will not return. > > > I'd still be curious to know which consumer, if they're still interested, > what feature they're trying to build with it, if they're using Clang/LLVM's > output, etc. DW_AT_noreturn (http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=140331.1) was requested by Mark Wielaard, who AFAICT works for Red Hat. Now you know as much as I do. >> As a flag, in the DWARF it costs an extra abbrev entry but no space in >> .debug_info. Cheap enough for me.) > > Oh, sure - I don't think the output cost is high here or there - but it's > more feature surface area, the time spent designing, code reviewing, > supporting, etc, another place for bugs, etc. So I'd generally like to have > some justification beyond "the spec says we can" - ideally, I'd like a DWARF > consumer that's actively trying to build a feature that they can't without > this new information. Fair. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68117/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68117 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
