aprantl added a comment. In D67723#1717416 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67723#1717416>, @rnk wrote:
> In D67723#1710134 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67723#1710134>, @probinson wrote: > > > FTR, since @rnk has mentioned my years-ago writings, what Sony has > > internally nowadays is a little different than what I said back then. We > > have an option spelled `-gno-inlined-scopes` which is slightly tricky to > > describe precisely, but the intent is that for debug-info purposes, certain > > functions appear to be empty. That is, the declaration is still emitted > > (which is different from `nodebug`) but the generated IR has no source > > locations. > > > Thanks for the info. That's interesting, and in the end I suppose it's pretty > different from the behavior we had in mind for this flag. > > --- > > I chatted offline with @dblaikie and he suggested perhaps it would be better > to motivate this flag as one of the many existing knobs we have for > controlling the volume of debug info produced by the debugger. We already > have two major examples of this: > > - -gline-tables-only / -gmlt / -g1 > - -flimit-debug / -fno-standalone-debug This flag exists to give the user the > ability to produce even less debug info, if that debug info seems to be > putting pressure on the tools downstream: the linker or the debugger. I agree that it would make sense to have a `-ginline-info-threshold=<#insns>` or `-gno-small-inline-functions` with a hardcoded threshold to implement the feature Paul described, and this patch seems to be a step in that direction, with the threshold being hardcoded to 0. > We are motivated by one tool in particular at the moment, but if we're going > to take the time to add a knob, we might as well make it work for DWARF. Here you got me confused: When I read "we might as well make it work for DWARF", I read that as "we should emit the inlined instructions with line 0 under a DWARF debugger tuning". But that reading seems to to contradict your next sentence: > If the user cares enough to find this flag, it seems more user friendly to > make it behave the same rather than making it format-dependent. Can you clarify? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67723/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67723 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
