aprantl accepted this revision.
aprantl added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================
Comment at: test/CodeGenObjC/debug-info-blocks.m:20
// CHECK: call {{.*}}, !dbg ![[DBG_LINE:[0-9]+]]
// CHECK-NOT: ret
// CHECK: load {{.*}}, !dbg ![[COPY_LINE:[0-9]+]]
----------------
vsk wrote:
> aprantl wrote:
> > aprantl wrote:
> > > vsk wrote:
> > > > aprantl wrote:
> > > > > What's the location used for the ret? I think it should also be`
> > > > > ![[DBG_LINE]]` since we are not actually executing the block.
> > > > We're using COPY_LINE, which is the same location used for the load
> > > > instruction below.
> > > >
> > > > What's the semantic difference between DBG_LINE (line 0) and COPY_LINE
> > > > (line 68) anyway? Why do we have two different locations for the
> > > > arguments to this function?
> > > The debugger will skip over line 0 locations when single-stepping or when
> > > setting breakpoints. I can't tell without reading the code why we decide
> > > to put a line 0 on the call.
> > The important thing is that the testcase should check that the ret has
> > either COPY_LINE or line 0 on it and not line 71.
> I'll fix up the test case.
>
> It looks like the zero location is an artifact of
> CodeGenFunction::StartFunction:
> ```
> 1128 // Emit a location at the end of the prologue.
>
>
> 1129 if (CGDebugInfo *DI = getDebugInfo())
>
>
> 1130 DI->EmitLocation(Builder, StartLoc);
> ```
>
> I think it's unnecessary, but maybe we can look into that separately?
... and StartLoc is empty for this function? (which would make sense)
I think I'm fine with leaving this as is unless you feel strongly about it.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39310
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
