dblaikie added a comment. (@probinson as someone I've disagreed with about this before)
Personally I think there's limited value in expressing 'auto' in DWARF at all - we could omit function declarations if the return type is not known (undeduced auto) and wouldn't lose much - basically treating them the same as templates that aren't instantiated yet. (& I believe Sony does this for all functions anyway - only including them when they're defined, not including an exhaustive list of member functions in class definitions) Does anyone have particular DWARF consumer features they have built/would like to build that benefit from/require knowing that a function was defined with an `auto` return type? Previously discussed/debated here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70524 CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D123319 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
