search for: adddieentri

> In beginModule, we construct the CUs, but not all the DIEs that belong to >>> the CU. >>> In endFunction, we started to construct the scope DIEs. So in some >>> sense, we are adding things to prior CUs. >>> >>> Looking at void CompileUnit::addDIEEntry(DIE *Die, uint16_t Attribute, >>> DIE *Entry), we can possibly have 3 CUs, this CU,

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:22 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:24 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at

There are a few places where we break the assumption: 1> formal_parameter constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute type we call SPCU->addType(Arg, ATy), where Arg does not belong to SPCU. 2> inlined_subroutine constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute abstract_origin The inlined_subroutine does not belong to the CU we call addDIEEntry on. We create the children

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:32 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:59 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> In beginModule, we construct the CUs, but not all the DIEs that belong >>>>> to the CU. >>>>> In endFunction, we started to construct the scope DIEs. So in

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:24 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:59 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > In beginModule, we construct the CUs, but not all the DIEs that belong >>>> to the CU. >>>> In endFunction, we started to construct the scope DIEs. So in some >>>> sense, we are adding things to prior CUs. >>>> >>>> Looking at void

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:59 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> In beginModule, we construct the CUs, but not all

The first patch seems fine, though the comment on the modified addDIEEntry function is a bit confusing: -/// addDIEEntry - Add a DIE attribute data and value. +/// addDIEEntry - Add a DIE attribute data and value. The form should be +/// a reference form: ref1, ref2, ref4, ref8, ref_udata, ref_addr, +/// or ref_sig8. A form can be chosen inside addDIEEntry. When the comment says "The form

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> There are a few places where we break the assumption: >> 1> formal_parameter constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute type >> we call SPCU->addType(Arg, ATy),

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> There are a few places where we break the assumption:

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > There are a few places where we break the assumption: > 1> formal_parameter constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute type > we call SPCU->addType(Arg, ATy), where Arg does not belong to SPCU. > 2> inlined_subroutine constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute >

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > David, > > Thanks for reviewing! > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:36 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Might be easier if these were on Phabricator, but here are some thoughts: >> >> 0001: >> This patch generally, while separated for

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at

Ping :) On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> David, >> >> Thanks for reviewing! >> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:36 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Might be

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:24 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:10 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:10 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at