On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Robinson, Paul < paul_robin...@playstation.sony.com> wrote:
> | Types are a bit more vague (as to whether omitting unreferenced types is > supported by the standard) DWARF 4 just says "Structure, union, and class > types are represented by debugging information entries ...". > > There's some expansion of the "permissive" discussion in the works for > DWARF 5. In essence, DWARF doesn't tell you _what_ to describe, but if you > describe something, you do it _how_ the spec says. So, omitting unused > types and function declarations, or lexical blocks with no containing > declarations, or even things like inlined subroutines, etc. etc. is all > kosher, while things like the template parameter DIEs and the artificial > import of anonymous namespaces are actually required. > Honestly I'm more with you on the template parameter DIEs than I am on the anonymous namespace... especially from a source fidelity perspective. > > > | Any size numbers for this change? > > I got in the neighborhood of 1% (just under, IIRC) of the sum of .debug_* > sections for a self-build of Clang. > Ah, cool - good to know. Thanks! > > > | In any case, it seems like it might make sense for you to upstream your > template naming change and put it under the PS4 debugger tuning option, and > put this change there too, once the motivation for it is in-tree. At that > point, while I'd be curious about the size tradeoff, it'd be essentially > academic > > > > Exposing tuning up through Clang is actually very nearly at the top of my > list now. > Great :)
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
