probinson added a comment. > These experiments are convincing me that, in general, line zero isn't that > helpful for DWARF consumers. If the goal is to get smooth stepping, we may > want to refocus on getting reliable is_stmt bits in the line table.
If you mean, it's not useful for identifying the call site as the implicit source for the inlined function, well, yeah. Line 0 means "there is no useful source location to attach to this instruction" and it's not what you want here. Based solely on the description of /Zo- in the Microsoft docs, I'd guess it behaves more like Sony's original implementation: Instead of attaching the call-site location using InlinedAt, just replace the original source location with the call-site location. Adrian's point that line 0 would be less misleading for profilers etc is true, but as a couple of Dev Meeting discussions suggested, there is no one solution that will please all consumers (unless we invent a more complicated line table that provides everyone with the answers they want). My thinking is that if the user *asked* to suppress inlined scopes, then profiling is not their major concern, and there's no benefit to using line 0 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
