SGTM (heh, I don't even remember "llvm.dbg.func.start" - maybe that's from before my time... yep, 2009)
Maybe it'd be nice to make sure that this test doesn't bitrot the same way again - have a canary of some kind? (eg: a non-nodebug function and positively CHECK for the same features - so if those checks ever fail, we know we've accidentally made the negative tests for dbg/DISubprogram invalid) Seems weird - not sure if it's a good idea. Just a thought. On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Paul Robinson < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi dblaikie, echristo, > > Attirbute 'nodebug' means no llvm.dbg.* intrinsics, no !dbg annotations, > and no DISubprogram for the function. > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D10747 > > Files: > test/CodeGen/attr-nodebug.c > > Index: test/CodeGen/attr-nodebug.c > =================================================================== > --- test/CodeGen/attr-nodebug.c > +++ test/CodeGen/attr-nodebug.c > @@ -1,5 +1,4 @@ > -// RUN: %clang_cc1 -g -emit-llvm -o %t %s > -// RUN: not grep 'call void @llvm.dbg.func.start' %t > +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -g -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s > > void t1() __attribute__((nodebug)); > > @@ -10,3 +9,10 @@ > a++; > } > > +// IR should have no llvm.dbg.* calls, or !dbg annotations. > +// CHECK-LABEL: @t1 > +// CHECK-NOT: dbg > +// CHECK: } > + > +// And no function description for debug info. > +// CHECK-NOT: DISubprogram > > EMAIL PREFERENCES > http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
