zturner added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-nested-exprs.cpp:44
+ int a = bar(x, y) +
+ baz(x, z) +
+ qux(y, z);
----------------
inglorion wrote:
> zturner wrote:
> > inglorion wrote:
> > > zturner wrote:
> > > > Can you make a function called `int foo()` and make this `int a =
> > > > bar(foo(), y) + ...`
> > > Yes. Why? To test an additional level of nesting?
> > Yes. for that matter, even better would be if this call to `foo()` spans
> > multiple lines. Right here you've got a single statement which spans
> > multiple lines, but no individual sub-expression spans multiple lines. And
> > FWICT there is no nesting at all, since + is just a builtin operator.
> The nesting here is the calls to bar, baz, and qux inside the declaration of
> a. The old behavior would emit separate locations for each of the calls, the
> new behavior annotates each of the calls with the same location as the
> declaration. This causes the debugger to stop only once for the entire
> statement when using step over, and makes step into specific work.
Sure, but does that execute the same codepath as:
```
int a = bar(
baz());
a = bar(baz());
for (const auto &X : foo(bar()))
for (int x = foo(); x < bar(); baz(x))
if (foo() && bar())
if (createObject().func())
```
etc? And what if one or more of these functions get inlined? For example,
what if you have:
```
int a = foo(bar(baz()), bar(buzz()));
```
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37529
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
