Duncan P. N. Exon Smith
2014-Oct-27 18:18 UTC
[LLVMdev] First-class debug info IR: MDLocation
> On 2014-Oct-27, at 09:33, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Would it be possible to omit the names of unreferenced nested metadata? (if you have a bunch of member functions in a class, but don't need to refer to them elsewhere (eg: those member functions aren't defined in this translation unit)) - that'd help readability/writeability, but probably wouldn't impact FileCheck. >> >> Certainly possible, but is it generally desirable? > > I would imagine so - is there any reason the names/numbers would be preferable?I don't know :). @Adrian?>> I guess we'll sort that out when I get there. > > Sure enough.
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 11:18 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On 2014-Oct-27, at 09:33, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Would it be possible to omit the names of unreferenced nested metadata? (if you have a bunch of member functions in a class, but don't need to refer to them elsewhere (eg: those member functions aren't defined in this translation unit)) - that'd help readability/writeability, but probably wouldn't impact FileCheck. >>> >>> Certainly possible, but is it generally desirable? >> >> I would imagine so - is there any reason the names/numbers would be preferable? > > I don't know :). > > @Adrian?There are certainly precedents in LLVM assembly language for specifying child nodes inline. For instance, you can write call @llvm.dbg.value(i32 %var, metadata !{}, metadata !{i32 ..., ...}) I think that would be reasonable. -- adrian> >>> I guess we'll sort that out when I get there. >> >> Sure enough.
Duncan P. N. Exon Smith
2014-Oct-27 18:37 UTC
[LLVMdev] First-class debug info IR: MDLocation
> On 2014-Oct-27, at 11:20, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 27, 2014, at 11:18 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On 2014-Oct-27, at 09:33, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> Would it be possible to omit the names of unreferenced nested metadata? (if you have a bunch of member functions in a class, but don't need to refer to them elsewhere (eg: those member functions aren't defined in this translation unit)) - that'd help readability/writeability, but probably wouldn't impact FileCheck. >>>> >>>> Certainly possible, but is it generally desirable? >>> >>> I would imagine so - is there any reason the names/numbers would be preferable? >> >> I don't know :). >> >> @Adrian? > > There are certainly precedents in LLVM assembly language for specifying child nodes inline. For instance, you can write > call @llvm.dbg.value(i32 %var, metadata !{}, metadata !{i32 ..., ...}) > I think that would be reasonable.Oh -- I get it. I thought David was suggesting a semantic change, where the member functions would be skipped entirely if they weren't referenced. Hence punting it over :). Anyway, skipping the name/number is possible too. I don't see any reason for them either in that situation.