probinson added a comment. > Sometihng like this seems plausible to me:
Yes, I was playing with essentially that exact patch last night. It has no effect on the final assembly on its own, but combined with my patch it does. > (a more general fix (that would cover cases where the instruction really has > no location) might be to propagate locations from the first instruction in a > basic block with a location back up to the start of the basic block - I > forget if we've considered/tried that before) We have, but that without flushing the map on every instruction, so it caught materialization instructions that didn't actually belong to that IR instruction. The tactic would likely be more reasonable in conjunction with my patch. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91734/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91734 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
