tmsriram added a comment. In D93747#2469556 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93747#2469556>, @hoy wrote:
>> In D93656 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D93656>, @dblaikie wrote: >> Though the C case is interesting - it means you'll end up with C functions >> with the same DWARF 'name' but different linkage name. I don't know what >> that'll do to DWARF consumers - I guess they'll probably be OK-ish with it, >> as much as they are with C++ overloading. I think there are some cases of C >> name mangling so it's probably supported/OK-ish with DWARF Consumers. >> Wouldn't hurt for you to take a look/see what happens in that case with a >> debugger like gdb/check other cases of C name mangling to see what DWARF >> they end up creating (with both GCC and Clang). > > I did a quick experiment with C name managing with GCC and -flto. It turns > out the `DW_AT_linkage_name` field of `DW_TAG_subprogram` is never set for C > programs. If set, the gdb debugger will use that field to match the user > input and set breakpoints. Therefore, giving `DW_AT_linkage_name` a > uniquefied name prevents the debugger from setting a breakpoint based on > source names unless the user specifies a decorated name. > > Hence, this approach sounds like a workaround for us when the profile quality > matters more than debugging experience. I'm inclined to have it under a > switch. What do you think? Just a thought, we could always check if rawLinkageName is set and only set it when it is not null. That seems safe without needing the option. Not a strong opinion. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D93747/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D93747 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
