dblaikie added a comment. In D96778#2572405 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96778#2572405>, @jankratochvil wrote:
> In D96778#2566208 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96778#2566208>, @dblaikie wrote: > >> I expect it'd be good to have a test case showing the sort of DWARF that DWZ >> produces for cross-CU references of enumerators. > > Here is a new testcase for the second (`DW_TAG_variable`) fix: > https://people.redhat.com/jkratoch/D96778-test.patch > I cannot update the patch here. Ah, cool - for the final version of this, I'd suggest the author/whomever rolls this into one file with two CUs - bit easier to deal with. You could remove a bunch of extraneous DWARF too - since it's hardcoded DWARF, the subprogram/inlined subroutine/etc could be removed from CU1, leaving only the abstract subprogram and variable, both to be referenced from CU2. > DWZ can produce such case from GCC output (not used for the testcase): `g++ > -o inlinevar inlinevar{1,2}.C -Wall -g -O2;dwz ./inlinevar` > Such case is never produced clang output as the `DW_TAG_variable declaration` > is not merged by `clang -flto` and DWZ for unknown reason does not merge the > clang variant. I did merge it for the testcase from clang output by hand. > > I did not try a testcase for the enumerators if possible at all. Could you provide the source code for this - I wouldn't mind trying it out and seeing what might be different/why DWZ doesn't understand this. The LTO point you make is an interesting one too... yeah, for non-inlined (but inline linkage) functions LLVM during LTO deduplicates correctly, but this doesn't work out once inlining happens. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96778/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96778 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
