dblaikie added a comment. In D104777#2837347 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104777#2837347>, @brunodefraine wrote:
> In D104777#2836669 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104777#2836669>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >> Yeah, all that sounds reasonable to me - @brunodefraine could you look into >> supporting nodebug in a similar way as @aaron.ballman has described here? > > Since the debuginfo for `use()` is slightly affected by the `nodebug` version > of `t1()` that follows it, I can see how this back propagation is perhaps > dangerous. Checking that `nodebug` is the same on all declarations of a > function is a way to prevent this. > > But when discussing the PR, @probinson wrote "I'm inclined to think we want > this to work" and I can see what he means from the use case where I observed > the bug. If you don't want debuginfo for the implementation of `t1()`, it > should be fine to annotate just the function definition in an implementation > file, not the declaration in a header, since the debuginfo of the > implementation is not of the caller's concern. But `nodebug` as it exists > **does** affect the debuginfo of callers as well, so I cannot really express > that I don't want debuginfo for the implementation of a function and leave > its callers unaffected? I can see the convenience there, to be sure, being able to put the attribute directly on the function you want to debug - but consistency in how attributes are handled (admitedly this isn't a strong consistency - some are handled this way, some aren't) & consistently seeing the same state for an attribute for a given function seems useful. @probinson - thoughts? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104777/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104777 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
