https://github.com/clayborg commented:
Will this patch cause us to be able to have a `DW_TAG_subprogram` whose range is `[0x1000-0x2000)` and then have a `DW_AT_lexical_block` whose range doesn't exist within the `DW_TAG_subprogram` range and we will add it to the `DW_TAG_subprogram`? I worry because LTO and other passes might end up setting the address of a contained block to zero or -1 (tombstone). We don't want those added to the parent range unless the address is in the `DW_TAG_subprogram` range. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/117725 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
