search for: ditrivialtype

We still have access to types via MDNodes directly and the assertion that assumes all accesses to DITypes are accessing the resolved DIType will fire i.e assert(Ty == resolve(Ty.getRef())) One example is the access to DIType via DIArray in SubroutineType. If all elements in the type array are DITypes we can create a DITypeArray and use that for SubroutineType's type array instead. But we

...neType's type array instead. But we currently have >> unspecified parameter in the type array and it is not a DIType. > > > I am going to work on a patch that adds DITypeArray (each element will be > DITypeRef, SubroutineType's type array will be DITypeArray) and adds > DITrivialType that extends from DIType (unspecified parameter will be > DITrivialType). > If you have opinions against it, please let me know, We haven't bothered using typed arrays in DebugInfo yet (as you say, we just have DIArray) so I have two thoughts 1) why does this one case need fixing/chang...

...> unspecified parameter in the type array and it is not a DIType. >> > >> > >> > I am going to work on a patch that adds DITypeArray (each element will >> > be >> > DITypeRef, SubroutineType's type array will be DITypeArray) and adds >> > DITrivialType that extends from DIType (unspecified parameter will be >> > DITrivialType). >> > If you have opinions against it, please let me know, >> >> We haven't bothered using typed arrays in DebugInfo yet (as you say, >> we just have DIArray) so I have two thoughts...

...>> > >> >> > >> >> > I am going to work on a patch that adds DITypeArray (each element >> >> > will >> >> > be >> >> > DITypeRef, SubroutineType's type array will be DITypeArray) and adds >> >> > DITrivialType that extends from DIType (unspecified parameter will be >> >> > DITrivialType). >> >> > If you have opinions against it, please let me know, >> >> >> >> We haven't bothered using typed arrays in DebugInfo yet (as you say, >> >>...