dblaikie added a comment. In D94655#2498548 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D94655#2498548>, @MaskRay wrote:
> In D94655#2498504 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D94655#2498504>, @dblaikie wrote: > >> Is there any way to condition this on the type of the output, rather than >> the input? (or, more specifically, on whether machine code is being >> generated) >> >> Or maybe we could always pass the split-dwarf-file down through LLVM and not >> need to conditionalize it at all? It'd be a no-op if there's no DWARF in the >> IR anyway? > > I tried replacing `if (IRInput || Args.hasArg(options::OPT_g_Group)) {` with > `if (1)`, -gsplit-dwarf may produce .dwo for regular non-g .c compile. Are you saying that if you make that change -gsplit-dwarf does cause .dwo files to be created for non-g .c compiles? Do the dwo files have anything in them? I had modified llvm to dynamically choose split or non-split based on whether there was enough data to be worth splitting into a .dwo file, but I guess that situation might still be producing an empty .dwo file which isn't ideal - I haven't tested that. > Since we already have the > > // For -g0 or -gline-tables-only, drop -gsplit-dwarf. This gets a bit more > // complicated if you've disabled inline info in the skeleton CUs > // (SplitDWARFInlining) - then there's value in composing split-dwarf and > // line-tables-only, so let those compose naturally in that case. > > logic, I think altering `DwarfFission` in the driver is fine. If not, I'd > hope the backend to process `DwarfFission` ... Sorry, I'm not understanding this comment - could you describe/rephrase it in more detail? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D94655/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D94655 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
