krisb added a comment. In D125693#3644029 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D125693#3644029>, @dblaikie wrote:
> In D125693#3641742 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D125693#3641742>, @krisb wrote: > >> @dblaikie, could you please take a look at this and/or D113741 >> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113741>? Do you see any ways to proceed? > > My concern with this direction is that anything that adds lists to the IR > metadata makes it difficult for that data to be dropped when it becomes > unused (the type graph, apart from the "retained types" on the CU, is > structured so that if a variable, say, gets optimized away, or a function > gets optimized away and its parameters along with it, the types get dropped > too - similarly with function descriptions, they aren't in a list (they used > to be) and are instead referenced from the `llvm::Function` ensuring that if > the function is optimized away entirely, the debug info for that goes away > too). Admittedly function-local things are handled somewhat differently, for > instance there is a list on the `DISubprogram` of the local variables to > ensure they are retained through optimizations so name lookup does the right > things at function-scope. So /maybe/ it's OK to move in that direction here, > but it might look more like that, add these other function-local things to > the `DISubprogram`-scoped list (rename the list to generalize over more than > just variables), rather than adding per-scope lists? Initially, I made the dedicated per-scope list of local static vars/imports/types to make possible to remove unused entities if their parent scope gets optimized out. This doesn't fully resolve your concern about local types that might be emitted even if they are not used, but this makes the things a bit better. Moreover, such local entities as well as variables/labels are not going to be emitted to a final DWARF if their scope was optimized away. Currently, to emit any local entity we need its scope to have LexicalScope defined. If there are no DILocations in such a scope (so that it may be considered as optimized out), it will not have LexicalScope defined for it, thus no variables/labels/other local things will be emitted for it. So, if we are not going to change this design in a near future, it might be worse to consider switching local variables/labels to per-scope list as well. What about merging variables/labels/other entities to a single list, I fully support this idea (it would require some additional checks in the backend, but would look more consistent). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D125693/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D125693 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
