aaronpuchert added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/CodeGenOptions.def:263
-ENUM_CODEGENOPT(SplitDwarfMode, DwarfFissionKind, 2, NoFission) ///< DWARF
fission mode to use.
+CODEGENOPT(EnableSplitDwarf, 1, 0) ///< Whether to enable split DWARF.
----------------
aaronpuchert wrote:
> dblaikie wrote:
> > Could we skip this and rely on "SplitDwarFile" being non-empty?
> I think not, have a look at test/CodeGen/split-debug-filename.c:
>
> ```
> // RUN: %clang_cc1 -debug-info-kind=limited -split-dwarf-file foo.dwo -S
> -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s
> // RUN: %clang_cc1 -debug-info-kind=limited -enable-split-dwarf
> -split-dwarf-file foo.dwo -S -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck
> --check-prefix=VANILLA %s
> // ...
>
> // Testing to ensure that the dwo name gets output into the compile unit.
> // CHECK: !DICompileUnit({{.*}}, splitDebugFilename: "foo.dwo"
>
> // Testing to ensure that the dwo name is not output into the compile unit if
> // it's for vanilla split-dwarf rather than split-dwarf for implicit modules.
> // VANILLA-NOT: splitDebugFilename
> ```
>
> This seems intentional.
Although if that's up to change, I think we can drop it. If I'm not overlooking
anything, `-enable-split-dwarf` does nothing when `-emit-llvm` is also given.
So I'm not sure we lose anything by treating it the same way as `-emit-llvm
-split-dwarf-file ...` without `-enable-split-dwarf`.
Actually `llc` has exactly that behavior (inferring whether to enable Split
DWARF depending on whether there was a `-split-dwarf-file` argument), as I
remarked in D59673#1457720, but it doesn't emit IR and doesn't have to deal
with implicit modules...
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63167/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63167
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
