labath marked an inline comment as done.
labath added inline comments.

================
Comment at: 
lldb/test/API/functionalities/tail_call_frames/disambiguate_paths_to_common_sink/main.cpp:8
+  // FROM-FUNC1-NEXT: func1
+  // FROM-FUNC1-SAME: [artificial]
+  // FROM-FUNC1-NEXT: main
----------------
labath wrote:
> dblaikie wrote:
> > vsk wrote:
> > > labath wrote:
> > > > vsk wrote:
> > > > > Are these test updates necessary because lldb doesn't print '[opt]' 
> > > > > and '[artificial]' next to frame descriptions in a consistent way 
> > > > > across platforms? Or is it just that you don't think matching '[opt]' 
> > > > > is relevant to the test?
> > > > Right, I wanted to mention that as it's not very obvious, but I 
> > > > forgot...
> > > > 
> > > > The `[opt]` thingy is not printed at all with -ggdb because the 
> > > > attribute we get this information from -- DW_AT_APPLE_optimized -- is 
> > > > only emitted for -glldb. The optimization flag did not seem very 
> > > > relevant for these tests (I mean, technically the compiler could emit 
> > > > call site attributes even in non-optimized mode) so instead of forking 
> > > > the expectations I chose to simply remove it.
> > > Sounds good.
> > As an aside, now that lldb understands these attributes - perhaps we should 
> > emit them under -glldb as well as -ggdb? (@aprantl might be interested in 
> > making that call)
> FWIW, I think that would be great as it would reduce the effects of the 
> debugger tuning argument, making the compiler output more "portable".
> 
> Though, we may want to wait with that until I look at the -1 issue. I believe 
> that the way this is implemented now means we will end up pointing to the 
> middle of a call instruction in an artificial frame, which would be a slight 
> regression. It's not the end of the world, but I believe we can do something 
> slightly better.
Ok, I take that back. The instruction pointer handling is not terribly 
consistent right now anyway:
```
(lldb) up
frame #1: 0x0000000000401210 a.out`func12(...)
(lldb) register read rip
     rip = 0x0000000000401300  
```

So, I wouldn't worry too much about preserving behavior here.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D80519/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D80519



_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

Reply via email to