HsiangKai added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45045#1189201, @vext01 wrote:
> Hi, > > I've been experimenting some more with this patch. > > It seems to me that if a label is optimised away, but you've requested it be > preserved, then you get a DWARF label with a zero offset. Is that the > expected behaviour? Should it be documented? > > E.g.: > > < 6><0x000000dc> DW_TAG_label > DW_AT_name > __YK_BLK_2_19418_0 > DW_AT_low_pc 0x00000000 > > > Thanks! I expect that even the code is optimized out, the label will point to somewhere in the function. If the whole function is optimized out, the label should not exist any more. It should not have address zero. Do you have any test snippet to reproduce the bug? Thanks. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D45045 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
