probinson added a comment. In D152017#4397113 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152017#4397113>, @dblaikie wrote:
> What's the particular goal/value in including called-but-not-defined > functions? Are your users generally building only parts of their program with > debug info & you want it to be complete-ish in the parts that do have debug > info? Because if they were building the whole program with debug info, /some/ > translation unit would have the definition of the function, and the debug > info for it. Actually the goal was to match the behavior of proprietary compilers for previous consoles, knowing that the debugger would be fine with that. I think it's worth taking this idea (only defined methods) back to them, and see what they think. Because your patch is seriously simpler than ours! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D152017/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D152017 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
