dblaikie accepted this revision.
dblaikie added a comment.
While the related design discussions continue - the patch itself is
good/correct & there's nothing much to be done about the address pool
size/relocations increase for now, for GDB at least, which is what I care about.
Perhaps it's best if I split off the design discussions into an llvm-dev thread.
================
Comment at: llvm/test/tools/dsymutil/Inputs/call-site-entry.c:21-27
+int zero() {
+ return 0;
+}
+
+int main() {
+ return zero();
+}
----------------
Would this be able to be simplified down to:
```
__attribute__((optnone)) void f() {
}
int main() {
f();
}
```
(the attribute might be simpler than the command line argument to disable
optimizations)
Or does the function need to return int to get a call_site?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72489/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72489
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
