llvm dev - Mar 2016 - [GSoC] First draft project proposal; IR level interpreter debugger

Hello,

I have created a first draft GSoC project proposal for a IR level
interpreter debugger. I have omitted some contact information as it is
currently a public document (can be given upon request).

Feedback and comments are appreciated.

Proposal:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rhq0hsc6unMrd1IfxBYd_jdINt_eCAs0dq-dhjtRePo/edit?usp=sharing

Kind regards,
Janek van Oirschot

I don't quite understand what you mean by "x86 IR code" or
"IR level
x86 code"  -- can you please clarify?

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Janek van Oirschot via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have created a first draft GSoC project proposal for a IR level
> interpreter debugger. I have omitted some contact information as it is
> currently a public document (can be given upon request).
>
> Feedback and comments are appreciated.
>
> Proposal:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rhq0hsc6unMrd1IfxBYd_jdINt_eCAs0dq-dhjtRePo/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Kind regards,
> Janek van Oirschot
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev


-- 
Sanjoy Das
http://playingwithpointers.com

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Sanjoy Das
<sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote:
> I don't quite understand what you mean by "x86 IR code" or
"IR level
> x86 code"  -- can you please clarify?
In the FAQ I found the following: "since many platforms define their
ABIs in terms of C, and since LLVM is lower-level than C, front-ends
currently must emit platform-specific IR in order to have the result
conform to the platform ABI.". I might've interpreted this wrong but
from my understanding: there might be calls that are
architecture/platform dependant (example from LLVM FAQ is "sizeof"
operation for C/C++). I basically meant to say that I scope my project
to x86 architecture IR level debugging.

Thanks for the response, will clarify that in my proposal.

Kind regards,
Janek

I've scanned over your proposal, but am not quite sure I understand your 
objective.  Is your intent to be able to step through IR source in a 
debugger and inspect intermediate state?  If so, you may consider 
whether "simply" inserting debug metatadata into your IR which
describes
the IR source, and then compiling it gives you your desired result.

For the record, the current interpreter is poorly maintained, known to 
be somewhat buggy, and I don't believe anyone is actively working on it.

Philip

On 03/22/2016 06:00 PM, Janek van Oirschot via llvm-dev
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have created a first draft GSoC project proposal for a IR level
> interpreter debugger. I have omitted some contact information as it is
> currently a public document (can be given upon request).
>
> Feedback and comments are appreciated.
>
> Proposal:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rhq0hsc6unMrd1IfxBYd_jdINt_eCAs0dq-dhjtRePo/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Kind regards,
> Janek van Oirschot
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

On 03/25/2016 03:28 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev
wrote:
> I've scanned over your proposal, but am not quite sure I understand
your
> objective.  Is your intent to be able to step through IR source in a
> debugger and inspect intermediate state?  If so, you may consider
> whether "simply" inserting debug metatadata into your IR which
describes
> the IR source, and then compiling it gives you your desired result.
A pass that does precisely this has been contributed by someone from 
Intel at some point but got removed later on for reasons I don't recall.
It might be worth to scan the archives.

Tobias