dblaikie added a comment. In D67723#1708671 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67723#1708671>, @aprantl wrote:
> > Since that change, we treat line zero the same as "no location". If there > > are no locations in a basic block, then the whole block inherits the line > > number from the block layout predecessor, which could be unrelated. Keeping > > the inlined call site location gives us the highest likelihood that "step > > over" will stop at the next statement. > > Who is "we" in this context? The CodeView backend? > As far as DWARF is concerned (and LLVM mostly inherits the DWARF semantics) > line 0 is well-defined and means compiler-generated code or otherwise no > unambiguous source location. DWARF-based debuggers know to skip over > instructions with line 0. > > Is the problem that CodeView doesn't have this concept, or does the Windows > debugger no know how to deal with it (or both)? > > I'm feeling rather strongly that that LLVM should not be emitting wrong debug > info to work around bugs in a debugger. I understand that sometimes this > isn't possible because we don't control the consumers. The correct thing to > do here is to guard the workaround by a debugger tuning flag. For DWARF, we > do want line 0 here. (+1 to all that, FWIW) Though I think in this case since it's got to be handled during the transformation (rather than as an after the fact choice at debug-info-emission time) it might not be practical to guard by a debugger tuning flag. It could/should be guarded though, but may just have to be guarded by the format (not that we have any other debuggers consuming CodeView anyway, so I think it's sufficient here). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67723/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67723 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
