probinson added a comment. > Hmm, maybe this feature/suggestion is broken or at least not exactly awesome > when it comes to auto-returning functions that are eventually void-returning > functions? Now the function definition has no DW_AT_type to override the > unspecified_type in the declaration... :/ that's unfortunate (@probinson - > thoughts?)
Normally, the DW_AT_specification on the definition would mean, look at the declaration for additional attributes, such as DW_AT_type. However, the declaration's unspecified_type means, look at the definition. The definition omits DW_AT_type, therefore the return type is "void". It's a wee bit circular, but I think it's not unreasonable to expect the consumer to figure this out. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70524/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70524 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
