Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "786689".
Did you mean:
786489
2014 Feb 02
3
[LLVMdev] Why variables get "optimized away" after the last use in unoptimized code?
...ke this when the
variable isn't used any more, but is still in scope:
(gdb) p this
$11 = <optimized out>
Looking at the debug records, I don't see what is wrong, for example:
call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata !{%struct.Object* %1}, metadata
!73), !dbg !74
!73 = metadata !{i32 786689, metadata !63, metadata !"this", metadata
!68, i32 33554949, metadata !12, i32 0, i32 0} ; [ DW_TAG_arg_variable ]
[this] [line 517]
!63 is DW_TAG_subprogram scope.
'this' should exist through this subprogram, and never disappear. But it
becomes "optimized away" afte...
2013 Oct 15
0
[LLVMdev] Unwanted push/pop on Cortex-M.
...0] [from ]
!7 = metadata !{null, metadata !8}
!8 = metadata !{i32 786468, null, null, metadata !"char", i32 0, i64 8, i64
8, i64 0, i32 0, i32 8} ; [ DW_TAG_base_type ] [char] [line 0, size 8,
align 8, offset 0, enc DW_ATE_unsigned_char]
!9 = metadata !{metadata !10}
!10 = metadata !{i32 786689, metadata !4, metadata !"ch", metadata !5, i32
16777222, metadata !8, i32 0, i32 0} ; [ DW_TAG_arg_variable ] [ch] [line 6]
!11 = metadata !{i32 6, i32 0, metadata !4, null}
!12 = metadata !{i32 8, i32 0, metadata !4, null}
!13 = metadata !{i32 9, i32 0, metadata !4, null}
Thanks
Andrea...