Please do take over the pass revival. College hasn't left me with the
bandwidth to continue this side project :)
If there's small things here and there, I'd be happy to pitch in.
However,.whipping the patch into shape is beyond me right now.
Thanks
Siddharth
On Fri 23 Mar, 2018, 00:53 via llvm-dev, <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
wrote:
>
> >> This work could also be used to fix [3]. Although this probably
needs
> >> more though because there's the question of whether we should
preserve
> >> existing debug information in an LLVM IR file or write over it
when it
> >> is given to Clang.
> >
> > If foo.ll contains edited debug info, `clang -g` shouldn't
silently drop
> > the edits. A warning + no-op seems more appropriate.
> >
> > Happy to help with code review!
> >
> > thanks,
> > vedant
>
> Historically, the (mc) assembler has pretended the `-g` was not present
> and simply used the debug info described in the assembler source, with no
> diagnostic. I think that would be reasonable behavior for `llvm-as -g`
> or `clang -g foo.ll` as well.
> --paulr
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
--
Sending this from my phone, please excuse any typos!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180323/6bfad414/attachment.html>