Yeah. I can't see a difference here being useful, and more likely harmful. On Tue, Aug 25, 2015, 8:48 AM David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Bataev, Alexey <a.bat...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> Debug info points to the real place where it is captured, while >> diagnostics points to the first use of implicitly captured variable. > > > Right, but I'm trying to understand the justification for why that's the > right thing to do. Why the debug info user would want a different > experience than the compiler diagnostic consumer would want. > > > - David > > >> >> >> Best regards, >> Alexey Bataev >> ============= >> Software Engineer >> Intel Compiler Team >> >> 25.08.2015 18:22, David Blaikie пишет: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Bataev, Alexey <a.bat...@hotmail.com >>> <mailto:a.bat...@hotmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I though about this. I think it will be more convenient for user >>> to see the diagnostic on the first use of the variable rather than >>> on '=' or '&' symbol. >>> >>> >>> Why the difference between the diagnostic & the debug info, then? >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Alexey Bataev >>> ============= >>> Software Engineer >>> Intel Compiler Team >>> >>> 25.08.2015 18 <tel:25.08.2015%2018>:07, David Blaikie пишет: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Alexey Bataev via cfe-commits >>> <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org >>> <mailto:cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> >>> <mailto:cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org >>> >>> <mailto:cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org>>> wrote: >>> >>> ABataev created this revision. >>> ABataev added reviewers: echristo, rjmccall, rsmith. >>> ABataev added a subscriber: cfe-commits. >>> >>> When variables are implicitly captured in lambdas, debug info >>> generated for captured variables points to location where >>> they are >>> used first. This patch makes debug info to point to capture >>> default location. >>> >>> >>> Not sure if this is the right tradeoff, or if it is, perhaps >>> we should reconsider how our diagnostics work too? >>> >>> Currently if you, say, capture a variable by value and that >>> variable doesn't have an accessible copy ctor, the diagnostic >>> points to the first use. Should we change that too? >>> >>> >>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D12134 >>> >>> Files: >>> lib/Sema/SemaLambda.cpp >>> test/CodeGenCXX/debug-lambda-expressions.cpp >>> >>> Index: lib/Sema/SemaLambda.cpp >>> >>> =================================================================== >>> --- lib/Sema/SemaLambda.cpp >>> +++ lib/Sema/SemaLambda.cpp >>> @@ -1377,10 +1377,10 @@ >>> } >>> >>> static ExprResult performLambdaVarCaptureInitialization( >>> - Sema &S, LambdaScopeInfo::Capture &Capture, >>> - FieldDecl *Field, >>> + Sema &S, LambdaScopeInfo::Capture &Capture, FieldDecl >>> *Field, >>> SmallVectorImpl<VarDecl *> &ArrayIndexVars, >>> - SmallVectorImpl<unsigned> &ArrayIndexStarts) { >>> + SmallVectorImpl<unsigned> &ArrayIndexStarts, bool >>> ImplicitCapture, >>> + SourceLocation CaptureDefaultLoc) { >>> assert(Capture.isVariableCapture() && "not a variable >>> capture"); >>> >>> auto *Var = Capture.getVariable(); >>> @@ -1399,7 +1399,10 @@ >>> // An entity captured by a lambda-expression is >>> odr-used (3.2) in >>> // the scope containing the lambda-expression. >>> ExprResult RefResult = S.BuildDeclarationNameExpr( >>> - CXXScopeSpec(), >>> DeclarationNameInfo(Var->getDeclName(), >>> Loc), Var); >>> + CXXScopeSpec(), >>> + DeclarationNameInfo(Var->getDeclName(), >>> + ImplicitCapture ? >>> CaptureDefaultLoc : Loc), >>> + Var); >>> if (RefResult.isInvalid()) >>> return ExprError(); >>> Expr *Ref = RefResult.get(); >>> @@ -1561,7 +1564,8 @@ >>> Expr *Init = From.getInitExpr(); >>> if (!Init) { >>> auto InitResult = >>> performLambdaVarCaptureInitialization( >>> - *this, From, *CurField, ArrayIndexVars, >>> ArrayIndexStarts); >>> + *this, From, *CurField, ArrayIndexVars, >>> ArrayIndexStarts, >>> + CaptureDefault != LCD_None, CaptureDefaultLoc); >>> if (InitResult.isInvalid()) >>> return ExprError(); >>> Init = InitResult.get(); >>> Index: test/CodeGenCXX/debug-lambda-expressions.cpp >>> >>> =================================================================== >>> --- test/CodeGenCXX/debug-lambda-expressions.cpp >>> +++ test/CodeGenCXX/debug-lambda-expressions.cpp >>> @@ -14,6 +14,19 @@ >>> struct D { D(); D(const D&); int x; }; >>> int d(int x) { D y[10]; return [x,y] { return y[x].x; }(); } >>> >>> +// CHECK-LABEL: foo >>> +int foo(int x) { >>> +// CHECK: [[X:%.+]] = alloca i32, >>> +// CHECK: call void @llvm.dbg.declare( >>> +// CHECK: [[X_REF:%.+]] = getelementptr inbounds %{{.+}}, >>> %{{.+}}* %{{.+}}, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg ![[DBG_FOO:[0-9]+]] >>> +// CHECK: [[X_VAL:%.+]] = load i32, i32* [[X]], align 4, >>> !dbg >>> ![[DBG_FOO]] >>> +// CHECK: store i32 [[X_VAL]], i32* [[X_REF]], align 4, !dbg >>> ![[DBG_FOO]] >>> +// CHECK: call i32 @{{.+}}, !dbg ![[DBG_FOO]] >>> + return [=] { >>> + return x; >>> + }(); >>> +} >>> + >>> // Randomness for file. -- 6 >>> // CHECK: [[FILE:.*]] = !DIFile(filename: >>> "{{.*}}debug-lambda-expressions.cpp", >>> >>> @@ -100,3 +113,5 @@ >>> // CHECK-SAME: line: [[VAR_LINE]], >>> // CHECK-SAME: elements: >>> ![[VAR_ARGS:[0-9]+]] >>> // CHECK: ![[VAR_ARGS]] = !{!{{[0-9]+}}} >>> + >>> +// CHECK: [[DBG_FOO:![0-9]+]] = !DILocation(line: 25, >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cfe-commits mailing list >>> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> >>> <mailto:cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org >>> <mailto:cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org>> >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
