> On Jul 31, 2016, at 1:46 AM, Amjad Aboud <amjad.ab...@intel.com> wrote: > > aaboud added a comment. > >> ISTM that the DWARF spec intended such thunks to be encoded as >> `DW_AT_trampoline`. That seems more appropriate than relying on codegen >> emitting a tailcall. This way the debugger can make the policy decision of >> whether or not thunks should show up in the backtrace. > >> > >> In any case, correctness must always trump all else. Reverting to green >> should take precedence over a QoI bug like PR24235. > > > I agree to the revert, though I am not sure about the new test, it looks too > complected, especially the command line.
An app crashed somewhere because it loaded a garbage value from the stack. To show that problem the test is.a little longer than it would be if we only wanted to check " no tail + byval “. > I will let David decide on accepting that test or ask for improvement. > > Regards, > Amjad > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D22900 > > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
