aprantl added inline comments.
================ Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/IR/DebugInfoFlags.def:61 HANDLE_DI_FLAG((1 << 29), AllCallsDescribed) +HANDLE_DI_FLAG((1 << 30), CxxReturnUdt) ---------------- dblaikie wrote: > rnk wrote: > > @dblaikie @aprantl, does this seem like a reasonable flag to add, or should > > we mark record forward decls as trivial/nontrivial instead? > Currently we only have a trivial/nontrivial flag that goes one way, right? > (ie: true/false, not three state true/false/unknown) > > That would present a problem for forward declarations - because for a true > forward decl you can't know if it's trivial/non-trivial for passing, right? > so that'd present a subtle difference between trivial/non-trivial on a decl > (where it might be trivial/unknown) and on a def (where it's > trivial/non-trivial), yes? Should this perhaps be a DI_SPFLAG instead? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75215/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75215 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
