Re: PR 23551: why should we coalesce inlined variables?

["Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

On 7/9/07, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 22:24 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> The problem we have is that we don't separate out the debug info name
> from the ssa_variable name.  That is the first step.  I think we should
> follow something like the following:
>
> 1 - Add a link for each ssa name to the debug symbol. Either in a side
> table, or in the ssa-name itself. Doesn't matter. It should only be
> set/examined via access routines/macros so the underlying implementation
> is initially unimportant.

We probably will need to end up with a list of debug symbols per ssa-name.
One deficiency of the current machinery is that we can only track one, so
for example at inlining we either forget the name of the parameter in the
call expr or the name of the argument in the function decl.

Otherwise this all sounds like a nice plan to address the debug issues.

Richard.