aprantl accepted this revision.
aprantl added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
I think I may haved screwed up the phabricator process for this one.
This landed as r300523.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31440
___
cfe-commits mail
aprantl updated this revision to Diff 95318.
aprantl edited the summary of this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: nhaehnle.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31440
Files:
lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp
test/CodeGen/debug-info-vla.c
test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info.cpp
test/CodeGenOpenCL/amdgpu-debug-in
echristo requested changes to this revision.
echristo added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Sounds like Dave is asking for changes so I'll put it down as Request Changes
to get it out of my queue. :)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31440
__
dblaikie added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31440#713396, @aprantl wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31440#713308, @dblaikie wrote:
>
> > I'm a bit confused - the alloca was only emitted at -O0, by the looks of
> > it. Presumably it's pessimizing in some way at higher optimization
aprantl updated this revision to Diff 93900.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31440
Files:
lib/CodeGen/CGBlocks.cpp
lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp
lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.h
test/CodeGenObjC/debug-info-block-captured-self.m
test/CodeGenObjC/debug-info-blocks.m
Index: test/CodeGenObjC/debug-info-b
aprantl updated this revision to Diff 93897.
aprantl added a comment.
Add accidentally removed check for the debug info level back in.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31440
Files:
lib/CodeGen/CGBlocks.cpp
lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp
lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.h
test/CodeGenObjC/debug-info-block-
aprantl added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31440#713308, @dblaikie wrote:
> I'm a bit confused - the alloca was only emitted at -O0, by the looks of it.
> Presumably it's pessimizing in some way at higher optimization levels? Or is
> that not the case?
I think it is really working
dblaikie added a comment.
I'm a bit confused - the alloca was only emitted at -O0, by the looks of it.
Presumably it's pessimizing in some way at higher optimization levels? Or is
that not the case?
Also, it looks like this change lost the "if > gmlt" test, so might cause
variable declarations
aprantl created this revision.
LLVM now interprets DIExpressions correctly and no longer determines the
location description kind by looking at whether the first operator is a
DW_OP_deref.
The code that emitted debug info for block captures used to rely on this and
used the presence of