probinson added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:363-370
@@ -362,2 +362,10 @@
+// Convenience functions for debugger tuning.
+static bool tuneForGDB(CodeGenOptions &Opts) {
+ return Opts.getDebuggerTuning() == CodeGenOptions::DebuggerKindGDB;
+}
+static bool tuneForLLDB(CodeGenOptions &Opts) {
+ return Opts.getDebuggerTuning() == CodeGenOptions::DebuggerKindLLDB;
+}
+
static bool ParseCodeGenArgs(CodeGenOptions &Opts, ArgList &Args, InputKind IK,
----------------
echristo wrote:
> This seems like overkill for a single case.
I suppose... having the big hairy test inline isn't *that* unreadable.
================
Comment at: lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:446-448
@@ -445,3 +445,5 @@
Opts.DebugTypeExtRefs = Args.hasArg(OPT_dwarf_ext_refs);
- Opts.DebugExplicitImport = Triple.isPS4CPU();
+ Opts.DebugExplicitImport =
+ Opts.getDebuggerTuning() != CodeGenOptions::DebuggerKindGDB &&
+ Opts.getDebuggerTuning() != CodeGenOptions::DebuggerKindLLDB;
----------------
echristo wrote:
> Why not just a positive for debugger tuning SCE?
Because the default (i.e., no tuning specified) behavior should be to conform
to the DWARF spec, which basically says you need the explicit import. There's
a new extra RUN line in the test, with no tuning specified, to verify this.
GDB and LLDB are the oddballs here, they implement a special case for
namespaces whose name meets certain criteria, and do something beyond what
DWARF says to do. So, the condition is written to express that.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15881
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
