Maybe - though that'd actually make for larger debug info & not be much
use.
With nodebug+always_inline (which is how the intrinsics are provided) the
function call dissolves into the raw instruction it's meant to represent.
The debug info describes that instruction as if it had been written at the
point of the call.
With this artificial+always_inline a description of inlining would be
provided (DWARF's inlining description is a bit heavy/verbose) & the
debugger would step over it, rather than into it.
For longer functions (inlined or outlined), marking as artificial makes
sense, I think, but /probably/ not for those places already using
nodebug+always_inline.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:18 PM Reid Kleckner via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> rnk accepted this revision.
> rnk added subscribers: probinson, aprantl, dblaikie.
> rnk added a comment.
> This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
>
> lgtm
>
> ---
>
> Clang's builtin headers use `__attribute__((__nodebug__))` for this
> purpose. Do you think we should follow this up by using artificial instead?
> It seems like it would be a representational improvement. @aprantl
> @probinson @dblaikie
>
>
>
> ================
> Comment at: test/Sema/artificial.c:3
> +
> +void __attribute__((artificial)) bar() {} // expected-warning
> {{'artificial' attribute only applies to inline functions}}
> ----------------
> I think it's worth adding the `foo` function from the CodeGen test here to
> show we don't generate warnings when the function is inline specified.
>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D43259
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
