This switches most error printing to use diagnostics instead of direct
stream writes, even when not a specific file diagnostic. I'm allowing
empty filenames for this use-case.
This allows a little more specific testing to validate coverage of
output using the diagnostic coverage test. I'm adding a few tests to
cover things that weren't previously tested.
Separately, this also forces a little more standardization in format...
considering how changes like #4568 show effort being spent to _mirror_
diagnostic style, my thought is now to just use diagnostic code where
possible.
Note this also allows incrementally better testing of the language
server; I'm changing the crash fix from #4847 in favor of diagnostic
testing.
---------
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
This seems to be enough to avoid naming collisions for functions in any
of the current test cases (verified by asserting that the name of the
`llvm::Function` matches the name passed to create it - not triggering
LLVM's numbering that happens when names collide)
It currently implements mangling for namespace scopes, class scopes, and
impls.
Nothing generic is mangled yet - haven't looked at how that works,
though evidently it's not covered by existing testing, I guess.
Follow-up change will document the current mangling algorithm in
`toolchain/docs/lower.md`
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Co-authored-by: Carbon Infra Bot <carbon-external-infra@google.com>
The source line debug info generation assumed that the function would
have debug info. Check for a non-null di_subprogram_ to ensure we are
emitting debug info for the function.
Rather than checking the di_builder_ - this way if we implement
`nodebug` function attributes, it'll fall out naturally (by creating a
null di_subprogram_) rather than having to come back and change this
from "is debug info enabled" to "is debug info enabled for this
function" later on.
Discussed in the toolchain meeting today - we'd like to try having this
on by default and see if the cost isn't too high.
The nodebug test is a bit verbose, because it doesn't have the
`--exclude-dump-file-prefix` that test_file would usually add. Is there
a nicer way I could write this test to verify that --no-debug-info does
what it's meant to?
Jon Ross-PerkinsandChandler Carruth
