[PATCH] D69970: [CGDebugInfo] Emit subprograms for decls when AT_tail_call is understood (reland with fixes)

vsk closed this revision. vsk added a comment. Yes, this landed in 568db780bb7267651a902da8e85bc59fc89aea70 . CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69970/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69970

[PATCH] D69970: [CGDebugInfo] Emit subprograms for decls when AT_tail_call is understood (reland with fixes)

djtodoro added a comment. I guess this should be closed? :) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69970/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69970 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[PATCH] D69970: [CGDebugInfo] Emit subprograms for decls when AT_tail_call is understood (reland with fixes)

vsk added a comment. In D69970#1746103 , @dblaikie wrote: > In D69970#1745038 , @vsk wrote: > > > Don't emit declaration subprograms for functions with reserved names. There > > may not be much benefit from

[PATCH] D69970: [CGDebugInfo] Emit subprograms for decls when AT_tail_call is understood (reland with fixes)

dblaikie added a comment. In D69970#1745038 , @vsk wrote: > Don't emit declaration subprograms for functions with reserved names. There > may not be much benefit from referencing these functions from call site tags > (e.g. instead of relying on call

[PATCH] D69970: [CGDebugInfo] Emit subprograms for decls when AT_tail_call is understood (reland with fixes)

djtodoro added a comment. I think that it sounds reasonable to avoid declaration subprograms for functions with reserved names, so that part looks good to me. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69970/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69970

[PATCH] D69970: [CGDebugInfo] Emit subprograms for decls when AT_tail_call is understood (reland with fixes)

vsk updated this revision to Diff 229215. vsk added a comment. Don't emit declaration subprograms for functions with reserved names. There may not be much benefit from referencing these functions from call site tags (e.g. instead of relying on call site info to work out the arguments passed to

[PATCH] D69970: [CGDebugInfo] Emit subprograms for decls when AT_tail_call is understood (reland with fixes)

vsk added a comment. @dblaikie thanks for chasing that down & the detailed explanation. It's unfortunate that introducing call site info affects the line table. The impact of the change seems somewhat neutral (the additional line 0 locations aren't //wrong//, exactly), so I'm not sure it's

[PATCH] D69970: [CGDebugInfo] Emit subprograms for decls when AT_tail_call is understood (reland with fixes)

dblaikie added subscribers: probinson, echristo. dblaikie added a comment. OK - I believe the issue I'm seeing is an internal issue, a fragile/buggy test case. Please go ahead with this change if (by the sounds of it) all other concerns are addressed. For more rambling context: A test case

[PATCH] D69970: [CGDebugInfo] Emit subprograms for decls when AT_tail_call is understood (reland with fixes)

dblaikie added a comment. So I /think/ what's happening here is the extra addresses needed for the call_site low_pcs are creating new basic blocks (or whatever the logic is in the backend that says "use line zero at the start of each basic block-like thing" - possible that logic is overly

[PATCH] D69970: [CGDebugInfo] Emit subprograms for decls when AT_tail_call is understood (reland with fixes)

dblaikie added a comment. I can confirm we still have the same internal failure with this revised/updated patch. Trying to reduce/reproduce it. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69970/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69970 ___

[PATCH] D69970: [CGDebugInfo] Emit subprograms for decls when AT_tail_call is understood (reland with fixes)

dblaikie added a comment. In D69970#1742575 , @vsk wrote: > @dblaikie do you need more time to investigate? fwiw I didn't uncover any new > failures in a stage2 build with this patch applied. I haven't figured this out yet, sorry - bit inundated with a

[PATCH] D69970: [CGDebugInfo] Emit subprograms for decls when AT_tail_call is understood (reland with fixes)

vsk added a comment. @dblaikie do you need more time to investigate? fwiw I didn't uncover any new failures in a stage2 build with this patch applied. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69970/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69970

[PATCH] D69970: [CGDebugInfo] Emit subprograms for decls when AT_tail_call is understood (reland with fixes)

vsk added a comment. In D69970#1737814 , @dblaikie wrote: > The failure I am investigating from the original commit of this at Google > probably isn't related to the assertion failure that caused the revert of > this patch/being addressed by this

[PATCH] D69970: [CGDebugInfo] Emit subprograms for decls when AT_tail_call is understood (reland with fixes)

dblaikie added a comment. The failure I am investigating from the original commit of this at Google probably isn't related to the assertion failure that caused the revert of this patch/being addressed by this recommit. So if you could hold off a bit while I try to help provide a reproduction

[PATCH] D69970: [CGDebugInfo] Emit subprograms for decls when AT_tail_call is understood (reland with fixes)

vsk created this revision. vsk added reviewers: aprantl, djtodoro, dblaikie. Herald added a project: LLVM. Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits. Currently, clang emits subprograms for declared functions when the target debugger or DWARF standard is known to support entry values