llvm dev - Apr 2021 - llvm-dwarfdump stats for inlined functions

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 4:11 AM Djordje Todorovic <
Djordje.Todorovic at syrmia.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> As discussed on the https://reviews.llvm.org/D101025, we have noticed
> that there are two different stat categories for inlined functions when
> using `llvm-dwarfdump –statistics`:
>
> # inlined functions
>
> # inlined functions with abstract origin
>
> and it was introduced after the *D58849. *We were wondering if there is a
> particular motivation of doing so.
>
>
>
When I wrote D58849 I wasn't sure if all the inlined functions would have
abstract origins or not; that was one of the things I wanted to check on.

-- Caroline
cmtice at google.com

> Having an inlined_subroutine DIE with no abstract_origin attribute does
> not have so many benefits, so it might be better if we have an
> assertion/error (e.g., in the AsmPrinter) when we face such situation (or
> just to avoid dumping it into the final DWARF).
>
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Djordje
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210428/df10ecdd/attachment.html>

Hi Caroline,

Thanks for your response.
>When I wrote D58849 I wasn't sure if all the inlined functions would
have abstract origins or not; that was one of the things I wanted to check on.
OK, as Paul mentioned in the previous mail, it might be better if we calculated
the "#inlined functions without abstract origin".

Thanks,
Djordje
________________________________
From: Caroline Tice <cmtice at google.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 6:36 PM
To: Djordje Todorovic <Djordje.Todorovic at syrmia.com>
Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; aprantl at apple.com
<aprantl at apple.com>; dblaikie at gmail.com <dblaikie at
gmail.com>; asowda at cisco.com <asowda at cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] llvm-dwarfdump stats for inlined functions



On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 4:11 AM Djordje Todorovic <Djordje.Todorovic at
syrmia.com<mailto:Djordje.Todorovic at syrmia.com>> wrote:

Hi,



As discussed on the https://reviews.llvm.org/D101025, we have noticed that there
are two different stat categories for inlined functions when using
`llvm-dwarfdump –statistics`:

# inlined functions

# inlined functions with abstract origin

and it was introduced after the D58849. We were wondering if there is a
particular motivation of doing so.



When I wrote D58849 I wasn't sure if all the inlined functions would have
abstract origins or not; that was one of the things I wanted to check on.

-- Caroline
cmtice at google.com<mailto:cmtice at google.com>


Having an inlined_subroutine DIE with no abstract_origin attribute does not have
so many benefits, so it might be better if we have an assertion/error (e.g., in
the AsmPrinter) when we face such situation (or just to avoid dumping it into
the final DWARF).



Any thoughts?



Best regards,

Djordje

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210429/d16bf477/attachment.html>