aprantl added a comment. In D68117#1686929 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68117#1686929>, @SouraVX wrote:
> In D68117#1686235 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68117#1686235>, @aprantl wrote: > > > This needs a lot more test coverage: The frontend cases aren't all covered > > by frontend checks and neither is the dwarf output. > > > Do you mean to add more test cases ? Could you please elaborate on this I think it would be good to add a separate CFE test for this instead of piggybacking on clang/test/CodeGenCXX/dbg-info-all-calls-described.cpp whose indiates that it is really testing something else. The new test should fail if I comment out any of the changes in CreateCXXMemberFunction. Second, there needs to be a test in llvm/test/DebugInfo that takes LLVM IR as input and checks that the new attributes are showing up in the dwarfdump output. ================ Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp:1608 + if (CGM.getCodeGenOpts().DwarfVersion >= 5) { + // DWARF-5 support for, defaulted, deleted member functions ---------------- The clang frontend should not be the one making the decision here, if possible it would be better to unconditionally emit this info in LLVM IR and then filter it out in the backend. I could imagine that the PDB backend might find this info useful, too (but I don't know). CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68117/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68117 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
