Hi @aprantl, I have included all of your suggestions. Can I merge this?

Hi @aprantl, I have added a test that two DITemplateTypeParameter only differ in the isDefault parameter are not equal.

Hi @aprantl , can you please inform me what extra changes should I make in this patch.

@probinson I have reimplemented the feature by using DIFlags.

Thanks @dblaikie for all of your suggestions. I will commit this in 3 patches after getting the green signal from @aprantl.

@dblaikie, I have updated the test cases.

Hi @dblaikie, I removed the condition and put false as the third argument of PrintBool. I have also removed the updated bitcode file.

Thanks, @aprantl, and @dblaikie. I have added two new test cases as per your suggestions. I have to update dityperefs-3.8.ll and dityperefs-3.8.ll.bc because they are no longer compatible with this patch.

@aprantl Thanks for your valuable feedback.

Hi @dblaikie, I have incorporated your suggestions (renaming variables, test case modification).

Thanks @dblaikie for figuring out the missing feature. I have added support for the non-type template parameter too. Please let me know if further modifications are required. I will happily address them.

Hi @probinson, I have changed the patch according to your comments.

@dblaikie I have added an LLVM test case and I will commit it like a different patch.
I have also updated the clang test case.

@dblaikie Thanks a lot for the suggestions. I have made the changes such that this will become consistent with your suggestions.

@dblaikie . I have removed the redundant test case. What else should I do in this patch?

It looks to me like there are a few tests for unspecified_type already:

$ grep -r unspecified_type llvm/test
llvm/test/Assembler/debug-info.ll:; CHECK-NEXT: !7 = !DIBasicType(tag: DW_TAG_unspecified_type, name: "decltype(nullptr)")
llvm/test/Assembler/debug-info.ll:!8 = !DIBasicType(tag: DW_TAG_unspecified_type, name: "decltype(nullptr)")

...
@dblaikie, are you suggesting me to modify some of these existing test cases to include auto return functionality as well.

Hi @aprantl and @dblaikie. Currently, there is no test case for the unspecified type, so I have added that in the regression test suite. Also, I have incorporated all of your suggestions.

Thanks @dblaikie. I have updated go and C bindings. I have also added the release note for why these APIs are changing.

Thanks @aprantl for your suggestions. I have revised by patch based on that.

This revision includes

I am considering this

• Will commit this without C bindings
• will give separate patch for C bindings and release notes (if necessary).
• will give another patch for Go bindings and release notes (if necessary).

Hi @aprantl. Can we drop C binding for this feature ? What will be the impact of this.
As noted by @sammccall this does not conform / break LLVM-C ABI?

Hi @aprantl. I had made the changes and my team member will commit this.

Thanks for your suggestion @aprantl. I have revised the data type based on your suggestion. Please inform me if any other changes are required.

@aprantl Thanks for the suggestion. Based on your suggestion I have done the following changes

Thank you @djtodoro for reviewing this.

Revised and address comments of @djtodoro