================
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -debug-info-kind=limited -gno-column-info
-triple=x86_64-pc-linux -emit-llvm %s -o - | FileCheck %s
+
+// The important thing is that the compare and the conditional branch have
+// locs with the same scope (the lexical block for the 'if'). By turning off
+// column info, they end up with the same !dbg record, which halves the number
+// of checks to verify the scope.
+
+int c = 2;
+
+int f() {
+#line 100
+ if (int a = 5; a > c)
+ return 1;
+ return 0;
+}
+// CHECK-LABEL: define {{.*}} @_Z1fv()
+// CHECK: = icmp {{.*}} !dbg [[F_CMP:![0-9]+]]
+// CHECK-NEXT: br i1 {{.*}} !dbg [[F_CMP]]
----------------
dwblaikie wrote:
Hmm, yeah, that `EmitStopPoint` seems a bit unstable/unreliable - the scoped
location handling is designed to be more robust to ensure locations don't "leak
out" beyond where they're meant to apply...
I think maybe `EmitStopPoint` should be removed/reconsidered, but that's
perhaps beyond the scope (har har) of this issue - but thoughts in case anyone
else feels like picking up and running with that.
How's this location compare to other control structures (loops, etc) - do we (&
GCC) use the condition as the location for the branch instructions, or would it
be more suitable to use the start of `if` itself?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108300
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
