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

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 3:30 AM Djordje Todorovic
<Djordje.Todorovic at syrmia.com> wrote:
>
> 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".
If we're keeping the stat anyway, I suspect it's probably not worth
the hassle of renaming/reving the format/etc. But I don't have strong
opinions on it.

- Dave
>
> 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> 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
>
>

> > >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".
> 
> If we're keeping the stat anyway, I suspect it's probably not worth
> the hassle of renaming/reving the format/etc. But I don't have strong
> opinions on it.
If there's a database somewhere, probably not worth messing with the
schema.  For reporting to humans, I'd have a slight preference for 
what I said, but it's not a big deal.
--paulr