akhuang marked an inline comment as done. akhuang added inline comments.
================ Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/IR/DebugInfoFlags.def:61 HANDLE_DI_FLAG((1 << 29), AllCallsDescribed) +HANDLE_DI_FLAG((1 << 30), CxxReturnUdt) ---------------- rnk wrote: > aprantl wrote: > > dblaikie wrote: > > > rnk wrote: > > > > @dblaikie @aprantl, does this seem like a reasonable flag to add, or > > > > should we mark record forward decls as trivial/nontrivial instead? > > > Currently we only have a trivial/nontrivial flag that goes one way, > > > right? (ie: true/false, not three state true/false/unknown) > > > > > > That would present a problem for forward declarations - because for a > > > true forward decl you can't know if it's trivial/non-trivial for passing, > > > right? so that'd present a subtle difference between trivial/non-trivial > > > on a decl (where it might be trivial/unknown) and on a def (where it's > > > trivial/non-trivial), yes? > > Should this perhaps be a DI_SPFLAG instead? > It's true that there is an ambiguity between known trivial, known > non-trivial, and forward declared, unknown triviality. Amy's solution to this > problem was to mark forward declarations as nontrivial, which matches the > logic MSVC uses to set CxxReturnUdt, but might not be the right thing for > other consumers. Alternatively, I guess we can FlagNonTrivial to FlagTrivial, and then we can mark all the unknown things with cxxreturnudt. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75215/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75215 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
