llvmbot wrote:
<!--LLVM PR SUMMARY COMMENT--> @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Timm Baeder (tbaederr) <details> <summary>Changes</summary> We don't create function frames for builtin functions anymore. --- Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139571.diff 1 Files Affected: - (modified) clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/InterpFrame.cpp (+1-5) ``````````diff diff --git a/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/InterpFrame.cpp b/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/InterpFrame.cpp index e4bd4a6ba7656..a849ac71a7263 100644 --- a/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/InterpFrame.cpp +++ b/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/InterpFrame.cpp @@ -133,11 +133,7 @@ static bool shouldSkipInBacktrace(const Function *F) { } void InterpFrame::describe(llvm::raw_ostream &OS) const { - // We create frames for builtin functions as well, but we can't reliably - // diagnose them. The 'in call to' diagnostics for them add no value to the - // user _and_ it doesn't generally work since the argument types don't always - // match the function prototype. Just ignore them. - // Similarly, for lambda static invokers, we would just print __invoke(). + // For lambda static invokers, we would just print __invoke(). if (const auto *F = getFunction(); F && shouldSkipInBacktrace(F)) return; `````````` </details> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139571 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
