Diego Novillo via llvm-dev
2016-Jan-18 18:54 UTC
[llvm-dev] Should DISubprogram's scope be allowed to be null?
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:> Diego: To include line/col info for backend diagnostics, we produced debug > info but omitted the llvm.dbg.cu entry, right? So there are subprogram > debug info descriptions that are not referenced from a CU in llvm.dbg.cu, > yes? >Yes, that and for sample PGO. Omitting llvm.dbg.cu prevents codegen from emitting all that debug info to the final binary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160118/bdd50eb7/attachment.html>
Keno Fischer via llvm-dev
2016-Jan-18 18:57 UTC
[llvm-dev] Should DISubprogram's scope be allowed to be null?
In the patch comments I suggested adding a separate named metadata node to root compile units that you want in the IR, but not emitted into the binary. I assume that would work for you? Duncan, do you like that approach? On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote:> > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> Diego: To include line/col info for backend diagnostics, we produced >> debug info but omitted the llvm.dbg.cu entry, right? So there are >> subprogram debug info descriptions that are not referenced from a CU in >> llvm.dbg.cu, yes? >> > > Yes, that and for sample PGO. Omitting llvm.dbg.cu prevents codegen from > emitting all that debug info to the final binary. >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160118/b6a3f2b2/attachment.html>
Diego Novillo via llvm-dev
2016-Jan-18 19:07 UTC
[llvm-dev] Should DISubprogram's scope be allowed to be null?
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote:> In the patch comments I suggested adding a separate named metadata node to > root compile units that you want in the IR, but not emitted into the > binary. I assume that would work for you? >Absolutely. It's, in fact, preferable. The current approach is fairly hacky. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160118/1d5e0e73/attachment.html>
Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev
2016-Jan-18 20:48 UTC
[llvm-dev] Should DISubprogram's scope be allowed to be null?
> On 2016-Jan-18, at 10:57, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: > > In the patch comments I suggested adding a separate named metadata node to root compile units that you want in the IR, but not emitted into the binary. I assume that would work for you? > > Duncan, do you like that approach?SGTM.> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > Diego: To include line/col info for backend diagnostics, we produced debug info but omitted the llvm.dbg.cu entry, right? So there are subprogram debug info descriptions that are not referenced from a CU in llvm.dbg.cu, yes? > > Yes, that and for sample PGO. Omitting llvm.dbg.cu prevents codegen from emitting all that debug info to the final binary. >