dzhidzhoev wrote: Apologies for the delay in reviewing that. I was stuck on the original issue, so I appreciate this contribution. Now it's clear what was the root cause of the problem.
> There's also a risk that I misapplied D144008, which I had to copy-and-paste > out of Phab, @dzhidzhoev would you have a public-github branch that contains > that patch?. Yes, it is here https://github.com/dzhidzhoev/llvm-project/tree/rfc-krisb. I've rebased it on top of your changes. I can try merging the rest of the patches from the set after this one, though I'm not sure if I should open new PRs here on GitHub for them, or how else we're going to collect feedback after a commit gets merged. > While it passes the FileCheck lines in the test, it lacks the > DW_AT_abstract_origin that gcc produces -- observe that nothing references > addresses 8a or 5b. The consumer is then presumably left with a problem: it > might be able to discover the static variables A and B, and that they're in a > lexical block, but not _which_ lexical block. Are we sure that is a problem right now? I've tried to generate LLVM IR from the C++ source provided in the .ll test comments, and it seems that we get all static local DIGlobalVariables having DISubprogram declaration scopes, not DILexicalBlock scopes, despite we have such structure in the .ll test file. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/119001 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
