llvm dev - Nov 2011 - [LLVMdev] .debug_info section size in arm executable

On Nov 9, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote:
> 
> For one example, for enums clang will emit the names for all of the enum 
> cases. GCC only emits the ones that are used.
Is this a clang bug, or a feature?

-Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111109/01f7a2dd/attachment.html>

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> On Nov 9, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote:
>
>
> For one example, for enums clang will emit the names for all of the enum
> cases. GCC only emits the ones that are used.
>
>
> Is this a clang bug, or a feature?
>
I've argued for enums, it's a feature.

Nick is tracking other cases that are much more likely bugs.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111109/2515382a/attachment.html>

On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> 
> On Nov 9, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote:
> 
>> 
>> For one example, for enums clang will emit the names for all of the
enum
>> cases. GCC only emits the ones that are used.
> 
> Is this a clang bug, or a feature?
IMO this is probably a feature. Thinking about it like this:

int foo(enum Bar x) {
	switch(x)
          ...
}

int baz (int a)
{
   foo(a);
}

It's not good, but people do it. Also constructing enums via & and |
etc. It'd be nice to be able to get the name of whatever it is that the code
generator actually produced :)

-eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111109/b77951ca/attachment.html>

On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Eric Christopher wrote:
> 
> On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Nov 9, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> For one example, for enums clang will emit the names for all of the
enum
>>> cases. GCC only emits the ones that are used.
>> 
>> Is this a clang bug, or a feature?
> 
> IMO this is probably a feature. Thinking about it like this:
> 
> int foo(enum Bar x) {
> 	switch(x)
>           ...
> }
> 
> int baz (int a)
> {
>    foo(a);
> }
> 
> It's not good, but people do it. Also constructing enums via & and
| etc. It'd be nice to be able to get the name of whatever it is that the
code generator actually produced :)
> 
Agreed. LLVM itself does this sort of thing pretty frequently, actually, and
having the enum names and values available in the debugger is very nice.

-Jim