Yuri Pankov
2012-Feb-11 15:51 UTC
[LLVMdev] DW_TAG_base_type missing DW_AT_name for subrange types
Hi, ctfconvert is particularly unhappy about that (e.g., ERROR: ctfconvert: die 141: base type without name). Is it intended behavior? Simple testcase: int main(void) { int i[2]; return 0; } dwarfdump output: clang version 3.0 (tags/RELEASE_30/final): [...] LOCAL_SYMBOLS: [...] <3>< 120> DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_name i DW_AT_decl_file 1 /home/yuri/test.c DW_AT_decl_line 4 DW_AT_type <144> DW_AT_location DW_OP_fbreg 0 <1>< 134> DW_TAG_base_type DW_AT_name int DW_AT_encoding DW_ATE_signed DW_AT_byte_size 4 <1>< 141> DW_TAG_base_type DW_AT_byte_size 4 DW_AT_encoding DW_ATE_signed <1>< 144> DW_TAG_array_type DW_AT_type <134> <2>< 149> DW_TAG_subrange_type DW_AT_type <141> DW_AT_upper_bound <141>1 [...] gcc 3/4: [...] LOCAL_SYMBOLS: [...] <2>< 66> DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_name i DW_AT_decl_file 1 /home/yuri/test.c DW_AT_decl_line 4 DW_AT_type <86> DW_AT_location DW_OP_fbreg -16 <1>< 79> DW_TAG_base_type DW_AT_byte_size 4 DW_AT_encoding DW_ATE_signed DW_AT_name int <1>< 86> DW_TAG_array_type DW_AT_type <79> DW_AT_sibling <102> <2>< 95> DW_TAG_subrange_type DW_AT_type <102> DW_AT_upper_bound <102>1 <1>< 102> DW_TAG_base_type DW_AT_byte_size 4 DW_AT_encoding DW_ATE_unsigned DW_AT_name unsigned int [...]
Eric Christopher
2012-Feb-21 00:35 UTC
[LLVMdev] DW_TAG_base_type missing DW_AT_name for subrange types
On Feb 11, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Yuri Pankov <yuri.pankov at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi, > > ctfconvert is particularly unhappy about that (e.g., ERROR: ctfconvert: > die 141: base type without name). Is it intended behavior?Not that I know of, please file a bug. Thanks! -eric
Yuri Pankov
2012-Feb-23 01:15 UTC
[LLVMdev] DW_TAG_base_type missing DW_AT_name for subrange types
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:35:27 -0800, Eric Christopher wrote:> > On Feb 11, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Yuri Pankov<yuri.pankov at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> ctfconvert is particularly unhappy about that (e.g., ERROR: ctfconvert: >> die 141: base type without name). Is it intended behavior? > > Not that I know of, please file a bug.Done, http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12069 (I hope I got enough details in there).
Possibly Parallel Threads
- [LLVMdev] DW_TAG_base_type missing DW_AT_name for subrange types
- [LLVMdev] DW_TAG_base_type missing DW_AT_name for subrange types
- RFC: Adding debug information to LLVM to support Fortran
- Fwd: RFC: Adding debug information to LLVM to support Fortran
- RFC: DI: Stop preserving types from dead functions