vsk added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/CodeGenObjC/debug-info-blocks.m:13
-// rdar://problem/14386148
-// Test that we don't emit bogus line numbers for the helper functions.
-// Test that we do emit scope info for the helper functions.
+// rdar://problem/32907581
+// Test that we do emit scope info for the helper functions, and that the
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> We nowadays usually try to avoid rdar links in anything but commit messages
> because it is not helpful information for the LLVM community. It's better to
> just describe the issue at hand (which you are doing!) or create a PR with
> that contents and link to it.
Got it.
================
Comment at: test/CodeGenObjC/debug-info-blocks.m:20
// CHECK: call {{.*}}, !dbg ![[DBG_LINE:[0-9]+]]
// CHECK-NOT: ret
// CHECK: load {{.*}}, !dbg ![[COPY_LINE:[0-9]+]]
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> What's the location used for the ret? I think it should also be`
> ![[DBG_LINE]]` since we are not actually executing the block.
We're using COPY_LINE, which is the same location used for the load instruction
below.
What's the semantic difference between DBG_LINE (line 0) and COPY_LINE (line
68) anyway? Why do we have two different locations for the arguments to this
function?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39310
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
