dwblaikie wrote: > > So maybe the solution is as simple as removing the "unique" from > > DISubprogram definitions, and the existing infrastructure will handle it? > > (maybe have to expand it to allow it to work for things with > > DISPFlagDefinition... ) > > If I understand the idea behind #119001 right, the problem that caused the > crashes after #75385 was the case of two distinct DISubporgrams having a > local type that gets uniqued during LTO, and these parent subprograms both > retain the reference to the same local type (It was described here [#75385 > (comment)](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75385#issuecomment-2386684121)).
Yep, I think that's the original thing. > So I was thinking in the opposite direction: should we force unique distinct > definition DISubporgrams containing ODR-uniqued types, as well as it's done > for declaration subprograms contained by ODR-uniqued types? I'm suggesting more broadly: we should force-unique all DISubprograms (even if they don't contain odr-uniqued types), by making them not distinct anymore & generalizing the unquing infrastructure you quoted in langref. This should address a broader class of problems - including, for instance, LTO where a subprogram is inlined/out of line in multiple files. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142166 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
