search for: dbgvariableintrinsic

...gt; > Hi llvm-dev@, > > Switching focus to the LLVM implementation, the significant change is > using dbg.value's first operand to refer to a DILocalVariable, rather > than a Value. There's some impedance mismatch here, because all the > documentation (for example in the DbgVariableIntrinsic class) > expresses everything in terms of the variables location, whereas > implicit pointers don't have a location as they represent an extra > level of indirection. This is best demonstrated by the change to > IntrinsicInst.cpp in this patch [0] -- calling getVariableLocation on &...

Hey folks, Would you all mind having a bit of a design discussion around the feature both at the DWARF level and the LLVM implementation? It seems like what's currently being proposed/reviewed (based on the DWARF feature as spec'd) is a pretty big change & I'm not sure I understand the motivation, exactly. The core point of my confusion: Why does describing the thing a pointer

...gt;> Switching focus to the LLVM implementation, the significant change is > >> using dbg.value's first operand to refer to a DILocalVariable, rather > >> than a Value. There's some impedance mismatch here, because all the > >> documentation (for example in the DbgVariableIntrinsic class) > >> expresses everything in terms of the variables location, whereas > >> implicit pointers don't have a location as they represent an extra > >> level of indirection. This is best demonstrated by the change to > >> IntrinsicInst.cpp in this patch [0]...