dblaikie added a comment. In D91734#2482280 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91734#2482280>, @probinson wrote:
> In D91734#2480930 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91734#2480930>, @dblaikie wrote: > >> I haven't looked closely, but I take it this one test modification seems >> reasonable to you? I guess we're stepping into some subexpressions on a >> function call that we previously didn't? (they didn't have any instructions >> attributed to them until now, but it's not unreasonable that they have them >> attributed - for materializing constants to pass to a function call when the >> function call/constants are split over multiple lines, etc) > > Exactly. In each case, the test is trying to "next" over a function call; > gcc attributes all parameter evaluation to the function name, while clang > will attribute each parameter to its own location. And when the parameters > span multiple source lines, the is_stmt heuristic kicks in, so we stop on > each line with actual parameters. > > This is not ideal IMO; I'd rather be more principled about (a) stop at every > parameter, or (b) stop at no parameters. But without reworking how we do > is_stmt, I think fiddling the test to do enough single-steps to actually get > past the function call is okay. I get that it's a bit unreliable for the user - though GCC's approach isn't so different. If any of the parameter evaluations are themselves function calls, I think it does still multistep as well. Actually, it seems it does not. Somewhere back around GCC 6 it did what we're doing, but since about 8 at least, no matter what the expressions (at least I tested for + and function call) it attributes all the instructions to the function call line - even the backtrace is misleading - I don't think it's better, just different. But, yes, we could possibly do better with more strategic is_stmt, but that's a big/complex piece of work to tackle. 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
