Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "r260791".
Did you mean:
r260701
2016 Apr 15
2
Can DISubprogram be renamed?
Peter,
I am afraid I am missing a big picture with debug info cloning.
Certainly after your patch (and possibly in some cases earlier):
Cloning: Reduce complexity of debug info cloning and fix correctness
issue.
Commit r260791 contained an error in that it would introduce a
cross-module
reference in the old module. It also introduced O(N^2) complexity in the
module cloner by requiring the entire module to be visited for each
function.
Fix both of these problems by avoiding use of the CloneDebugInfoMetadata...
2016 Apr 20
2
Dangling debug value or bug in argument elimination pass?
...nctionInto()… After Peter’s patch was introduced:
commit af289e04413504c3bdc252e08c3fe17bf7ea6dc8
Author: Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>
Date: Wed Mar 30 22:05:13 2016 +0000
Cloning: Reduce complexity of debug info cloning and fix correctness issue.
Commit r260791 contained an error in that it would introduce a cross-module
reference in the old module. It also introduced O(N^2) complexity in the
module cloner by requiring the entire module to be visited for each function.
Fix both of these problems by avoiding use of the CloneDebugInfoMetadata...
2016 Apr 15
3
Dangling debug value or bug in argument elimination pass?
I will start from afar… When a dead function argument is removed, should we keep around the debug info for it?
I have the following case:
define internal fastcc void @foo(i8* %aa, i8* %reg, i8* %field, i32 %bb, ...) unnamed_addr #3 !dbg !28 {
entry:
call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %aa, i64 0, metabb !34, metabb !47), !dbg !57
call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %reg, i64 0,