dblaikie added a comment. In D80369#2057077 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80369#2057077>, @djtodoro wrote:
> >> @dblaikie wrote: > > > > ... At least for the C++ test, this change makes it pass: > > > > diff --git clang/test/Modules/ModuleDebugInfo.cpp > > clang/test/Modules/ModuleDebugInfo.cpp > > index 26369c89605..b1ffe27ec22 100644 > > --- clang/test/Modules/ModuleDebugInfo.cpp > > +++ clang/test/Modules/ModuleDebugInfo.cpp > > @@ -51,15 +51,6 @@ > > // CHECK-SAME: ) > > // CHECK: !DIEnumerator(name: "e5", value: 5, isUnsigned: true) > > > > -// CHECK: !DIDerivedType(tag: DW_TAG_typedef, name: "B", > > -// no mangled name here yet. > > - > > -// This type is anchored by a function parameter. > > -// CHECK: !DICompositeType(tag: DW_TAG_class_type, name: "A<void>" > > -// CHECK-SAME: elements: > > -// CHECK-SAME: templateParams: > > -// CHECK-SAME: identifier: "_ZTSN8DebugCXX1AIJvEEE") > > - > > // CHECK: !DICompositeType(tag: DW_TAG_structure_type, name: "Struct" > > // CHECK-SAME: identifier: "_ZTSN8DebugCXX6StructE") > > > > @@ -85,6 +76,12 @@ > > // CHECK-SAME: templateParams: > > // CHECK-SAME: identifier: > > "_ZTSN8DebugCXX8TemplateIlNS_6traitsIlEEEE") > > > > +// This type is anchored by a function parameter. > > +// CHECK: !DICompositeType(tag: DW_TAG_class_type, name: "A<void>" > > +// CHECK-SAME: elements: > > +// CHECK-SAME: templateParams: > > +// CHECK-SAME: identifier: "_ZTSN8DebugCXX1AIJvEEE") > > + > > // CHECK: !DIDerivedType(tag: DW_TAG_typedef, name: "FloatInstantiation" > > // no mangled name here yet. > > > > @@ -93,6 +90,9 @@ > > // CHECK-SAME: flags: DIFlagFwdDecl > > // CHECK-SAME: identifier: > > "_ZTSN8DebugCXX8TemplateIfNS_6traitsIfEEEE") > > > > +// CHECK: !DIDerivedType(tag: DW_TAG_typedef, name: "B", > > +// no mangled name here yet. > > + > > // CHECK: !DICompositeType(tag: DW_TAG_structure_type, name: "Virtual" > > // CHECK-SAME: elements: > > // CHECK-SAME: identifier: "_ZTS7Virtual") > > I've also faced this scenario, but the problem was with the > `Modules/ModuleDebugInfo.m` (Objective-C) test, since after applying previous > version of the patch [0] (plus refacotred Modules/DebugInfoTransitiveImport.m > & Modules/ModuleDebugInfo.cpp) there wasn't any `DISubprogram` at all, and > that was the reason I made this version of the patch. Not sure I follow - why was it a problem that there was no DISubprogram at all? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80369/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80369 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
