@curdeius thank you for looking at this!

Simplify the changes a bit.

Address @curdeius' comments.

Do we still need the following tests:

• clang/test/CXX/temp/temp.spec/temp.explicit/p11.cpp
• clang/test/CXX/temp/temp.spec/temp.explicit/p12.cpp

?

Make it compiled with c++03.

LGTM, thank you!

It seems it makes sense to apply the same changes to libcxxabi (see, libcxxabi/src/demangle/ItaniumDemangle.h) to keep them in sync.

Applied review comments, reduced the test.

Made comments more detailed and acccurate.

Thanks, @tejohnson, for reviewing this!
I'll make the comment more accurate.

Add the comment and FIXME.

@phosek thank you for reviewing this!

Addressed the review comment.

Ping

Sorry for the delays in response, busy days.
LGTM, thanks!

Changed MSVC -> WIN32 check and simplified the warning fix.

Thank you!
LGTM, except some minor nits below.

@plotfi @compnerd @phosek Thank you all for reviewing this!

Ping

@plotfi @compnerd
I created another review with an alternative solution at D81877. I'll appreciate if you have a chance to look at it. Thank you.

@compnerd @plotfi thank you for the comments! Sorry if the description looks confusing. I'll try to be more clear.
I'm trying to build something like

Ping

@djtodoro @aprantl thanks for reviewing this whole set of patches!

@aprantl thanks for the review! Are you okay with this test?

Refactor checks for constant members a bit.

Added a test.

@djtodoro thanks! Are you okay with this test case?

Add a test.

@djtodoro those two binaries with 99% of availability just have some variables w/o locations (mostly artificial 'this' parameters of member functions).
But this change reveals one more interesting case.
For code like this:

int foo() {
	if (cond1) {
		static const int a = 1;
		...
	}
	if (cond2) {
		static const int a = 1;
		...
	}
}

clang (unlike gcc) generates both a variables in the function scope, not in a corresponded DW_TAG_lexical_block (as gcc does).
I'm not sure clang is right here, cause a - despite it is static - isn't visible outside the if.
What do you think about this?

Use declaration info only to identify functions, global variables, and members.

In D72797#1829031, @djtodoro wrote:

So, this increases number of 'total vars' because these 'a' and 'b' variables counted twice.

I see... Can we do something to avoid the additional calculation? Somehow to recognize we already observed the a and b, although they have different DIE ID.

I also was a bit optimistic about how this patch(es) affects the performance of the statistics, it actually became two times slower than before the patches.

What patch from the stack adds the overhead? This one?

Yeah, this one mostly causes the overhead.
Actually, adding declaration info for ID is only necessary for functions, global variables, and members (because we need to handle static/inline functions/variables, and don't respect namespaces, classes, and structures). For local variables and parameters, Prefix + Name should be enough to distinguish all the cases (because their prefix already guaranteed uniqueness, for parameters the prefix is going to be added in D73003).
This approach shows better results:

@aprantl @djtodoro thanks for the comments!

Applied the comments.

Yeah, the rest of the code around SelectionDAG doesn't do a good job of keeping location intrinsics in order; I think it's acceptable to suffer a little bit more re-ordering here for an increase in available locations, for now.

Okay, I'll commit the patch as is, then. This issue with 'IROrder' in SelectionDAG is quite tricky, so I'll submit further changes in separate patches.

Rebased and reduced the test a bit more.

@spatel thanks for reporting this!
Could you, please, check that llvm-locstat wasn't cached in the build/install directory? llvm-locstat should look for a variables with (0%,10%) of its scope covered as was changed by the patch, so I guess it didn't get updated for some reason.

Updated the doc, rebased on D71366.

Fixed one more misprint.

Fixed a misprint in llvm/docs/CommandGuide/llvm-locstats.rst.

@djtodoro , Ah, missed this one. Thank you so much!

@djtodoro , @dblaikie thanks for your opinions! I created a separate review for this change https://reviews.llvm.org/D71366. Please, take a look if you have a chance.

Fix indentation in llvm-locstats output.

@aprantl, @djtodoro thanks! I reduced the test a bit more.

Reduced the test.