paulkirth added a comment. In D135488#3928831 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135488#3928831>, @dblaikie wrote:
> Any chance we could squirrel the info away (I assume there's a reason we > can't compute the info where the warn-stack-size LLVM feature is implemented > in PrologEpilogInserter.cpp) somewhere, and emit it as part of the > frame-larger-than/warn-stack-size diagnostic? > > (also, we do already have an opt remark for stack frame size in general (in > PrologEpilogInserter, very close to where warn-stack-size is implemented), so > it seems OK to use the remark infrastructure for a more detailed stack report > - but ideally if the point is to make frame-larger-than better, it'd be good > to include the info in that diagnostic) Originally, I had prototyped this to run when emitting `-Wframe-larger-than` diagnostics, however being able to dump the stack layout easily seems valuable on its own. The biggest advantage to delaying the pass is that we can print better diagnostics after the `LiveDebugValues` pass has a chance to run. The layout isn't affected, but we can print out more variable mappings by delaying the printing pass. In D135488#3928851 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D135488#3928851>, @dblaikie wrote: >> as a more general diagnostic output, like the other printing passes. > > As an aside: I don't think any "printing pass" is designed to be used beyond > LLVM compiler engineers - they're implementation details of the compiler, > even/much moreso than the optimization remarks infrastructure, which is > user-surfaced/clang-flag-supported/passed through suitable APIs (rather than > emitted raw to streams from the middle/backend). Optimization remarks are > plumbed through the diagnostic infrastructure, can be suppressed/enabled, > have file/line info at least some of the time, get all the clang diagnostic > formatting infrastructure (eg: current work to have a SARIF output mode would > be done up in clang, etc - and raw/direct output from LLVM wouldn't be > captured/handled by that work, for instance), colouring, etc. Thanks for the clarification. Those are good points, so thank you for the detailed answer. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D135488/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D135488 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
