aprantl added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D16135#669045, @aaboud wrote:
> Addressed Adrian last comments. > Added a LIT tests that covers all the macro kinds: > > 1. built-in (define) > 2. command-line (define, include, undef) > 3. main source (define, include, undef) Checked the above with and without > PCH include. > > Notice, that current implementation does not support debug info for macro > definition and inclusion generated during the PCH file creation. To support > that, we need to extend the PCH format to preserve this information. If you > believe this feature is important, I will open a bugzilla ticket and we can > handle it separately. That would be a good idea and important to fix. I don't think we want the the generated code (or the debug info for that matter) to change just because the user decides to switch to PCH. Ideally turning on PCH should be transparent. I have one final question: What's the impact of this change on, e.g., building clang? - How much does the build directory grow? - Is there any noticeable compile time regression? ================ Comment at: test/CodeGen/debug-info-macro.c:14 + +// Please, keep the source lines aligned as below: +/*Line 15*/ #define D1 1 ---------------- Alternatively, you may be able to use #line to force an easily recognizable line number (unless that messes with the macro debug info, or you can use FileCheck's [[@LINE-offset]] feature. https://reviews.llvm.org/D16135 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
