aprantl added a comment.
> The only drawback is that the cloned function's (the thunk's)
> DILocalVariableNodes will not appear in the newly cloned DISubprogram's node
> variable list. Instead, the new node points to the original function's
> variable list. However, since the only difference between the original
> function and the thunk is the this-ptr adjustment, the resulting debug
> information is correct, at least in the test cases I have looked at.
Does the thunk contain any local variables other than function arguments?
What I'm getting at is: If this is only a thunk, do we need any local variables
at all?
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGVTables.cpp:130
+// Furthermore, the function resolves any DILocalVariable nodes referenced
+// by dbg.value intrinsics so they can be properly mapped during cloning.
+static void resolveTopLevelMetadata(llvm::Function *Fn,
----------------
`///`
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGVTables.cpp:140
+
+ // Find all debug.declare intrinsics and resolve the DILocalVariable nodes
+ // they are referencing.
----------------
`debug.declare` -> (llvm.)`dbg.declare`.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGVTables.cpp:143
+ for (llvm::Function::iterator BB = Fn->begin(), E = Fn->end(); BB != E;
+ ++BB) {
+ for (llvm::Instruction &I : *BB) {
----------------
does this work?
`for (auto &BB : Fn->getBasicBlockList())`
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGVTables.cpp:145
+ for (llvm::Instruction &I : *BB) {
+ auto *DII = dyn_cast<llvm::DbgInfoIntrinsic>(&I);
+ if (DII) {
----------------
`if (auto *DII ...`
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39396
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
