jmorse wrote: (Transparency, I wrote some of the code in the PR so dunno if I should review it,)
> I /think/ function-local types need to go in definitions - in /abstract/ > definitions if they exist (not in the inlined instances or concrete out of > line instances). I think this highlights the difference in my thinking -- I've been treating "declaration" DISubprograms like they're actually "abstract" DISubprograms (they're very similar in my mind). As far as I'm aware we don't have any entities in LLVM-IR metadata to represent abstract DISubprograms, and from `DwarfCompileUnit::constructAbstractSubprogramScopeDIE` it looks like we just construct them on-the-fly when they become necessary. Would you see having a `DIAbstractSubprogram` metadata node, or a new subprogram flag, as being the correct refinement? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142166 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
