dblaikie added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp:3659
// Use llvm function name.
- Name = Fn->getName();
+ if (Fn->getName().startswith("___Z"))
+ LinkageName = Fn->getName();
----------------
shafik wrote:
> dblaikie wrote:
> > shafik wrote:
> > > dblaikie wrote:
> > > > aprantl wrote:
> > > > > aprantl wrote:
> > > > > > Could you please add a comment that Clang Blocks are generated as
> > > > > > raw llvm::Functions but do have a mangled name and that is handling
> > > > > > this case? Otherwise this would look suspicious.
> > > > > Should *all* raw LLVM functions have their name as the linkage name?
> > > > > Perhaps a raw LLVM function should only have a linkage name and no
> > > > > human-readable name?
> > > > Seems plausible to me - do we have any data on other types of functions
> > > > that hit this codepath?
> > > So it was not obvious to me what other cases would this branch so I added
> > > an assert and ran `check-clang` and from that I saw four cases that ended
> > > up here:
> > >
> > > `GenerateCapturedStmtFunction`
> > > `GenerateOpenMPCapturedStmtFunction`
> > > `GenerateBlockFunction`
> > > `generateDestroyHelper`
> > >
> > > It is not obvious to me we want to alter the behavior of any of the other
> > > cases.
> > Could you show any small source examples & their corresponding DWARF & how
> > that DWARF would change? (what names are we using, what names would we end
> > up using/what sort of things are they naming)
> Ok, I understand the objections to special casing like this. We ended up
> setting both the `Name` and `LinkageName` unconditionally in this branch
> because not setting the name for subroutines end up with us generating
> `DW_TAG_subprogram` without a `DW_AT_name` which is not valid. We discovered
> this when running the LLDB test suite.
If we need to have a name, and these are mangled names - were they mangled
/from/ something & have an unmangled name we should be using, then?
llvm-cxxfilt demangles the example/test as "invocation function for block in
f(void (int) block_pointer)" - perhaps we should name this "invocation
function"? & let the scope of the DIE communicate the rest of the information
about this thing (like the "operator()" for a lambda is just "operator()")?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73282/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73282
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
