On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Eric Christopher via llvm-commits <
llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> echristo added inline comments.
>
> ================
> Comment at: lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfDebug.cpp:477-479
> @@ -476,2 +476,5 @@
> + unsigned DebugCUs = 0;
> for (MDNode *N : CU_Nodes->operands()) {
> auto *CUNode = cast<DICompileUnit>(N);
> + if (CUNode->getEmissionKind() == DICompileUnit::NoDebug)
> + continue;
> ----------------
> Instead of this pattern would it make more sense to have an iterator over
> the nodes that checks for !NoDebug?
>
Yeah, that sounds like something that might be nice.
Adrian - I recall one of your initial ideas was to just have a different
named metadata node for these subprograms. What was the motivation for not
going with that plan? (which would've meant these sort of loops would've
remained OK, and only the loops in the verifier and such would need to
examine both nodes?) Perhaps this relates to your comment about LTOing
debug+nodebug CUs? I didn't quite follow what was wrong with that in the
first place & how this addresses it, could you explain it?
>
> ================
> Comment at: lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfDebug.cpp:1127-1128
> @@ -1115,3 +1126,4 @@
> if (!MMI->hasDebugInfo() || LScopes.empty() ||
> - !MF->getFunction()->getSubprogram()) {
> + !MF->getFunction()->getSubprogram() ||
> + !SPMap.lookup(MF->getFunction()->getSubprogram())) {
> // If we don't have a lexical scope for this function then there will
> ----------------
> Comment.
>
>
> Repository:
> rL LLVM
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D18808
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
