dblaikie added a comment. In D96778#2573076 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96778#2573076>, @jankratochvil wrote:
> In D96778#2572816 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96778#2572816>, @dblaikie wrote: > >> rolls this into one file with two CUs - bit easier to deal with. > > Then one could not use the `.file` directives and one would need to code also > `.debug_line` by hand. Ah, right, makes sense. >> 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. > > dwz will merge it without -flto but not with -flto: > http://people.redhat.com/jkratoch/inlinevar.d.tar.xz Ah, yeah, so I see - thanks for the repro! If I had to guess, it'd be because with LTO clang emits the abstract origin lexically after the inlined instance of "var", whereas with non-LTO clang emits the abstract origin before the inlined instance. (& yeah, clang should get this right with lto without the need for dwz - LLVM correctly deduplicates types when merging for LTO, but doesn't do so for already-inlined functions, could be done with the same sort of logic, though) > Personally I am not interested in DWZ, I am implementing it only as a > compatibility with existing file format, IMNSHO DWZ should be dropped. Not sure I follow. dwz does use the existing DWARF file format. you mean you're only interested in compatibility with the DWARF directly produced by compilers, not post-processed by dwz? Fair enough. I guess @werat has some interest in supporting dwz for their use cases. 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
