Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "alokkumar".
2019 Nov 15
4
DW_OP_implicit_pointer design/implementation in general
...that
> DIE, implicit_pointer within sink() can refer to it.
>
>
>
> *From:* David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2019 5:32 PM
> *To:* Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
> *Cc:* Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com>; AlokKumar.Sharma at amd.com; Jonas
> Devlieghere <jdevlieghere at apple.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject:* Re: DW_OP_implicit_pointer design/implementation in general
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:53 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robins...
2019 Nov 14
2
DW_OP_implicit_pointer design/implementation in general
...source();
void f(foo);
inline void sink(foo* p) {
f(*p);
}
int main() {
sink(&source());
}
> --paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2019 4:34 PM
> *To:* Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com>
> *Cc:* AlokKumar.Sharma at amd.com; Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>;
> Jonas Devlieghere <jdevlieghere at apple.com>; llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject:* Re: DW_OP_implicit_pointer design/implementation in general
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu...
2019 Nov 14
3
DW_OP_implicit_pointer design/implementation in general
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:27 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 2019, at 1:21 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > Would you all mind having a bit of a design discussion around the
> feature both at the DWARF level and the LLVM implementation? It seems like
> what's
2019 Dec 18
4
DW_OP_implicit_pointer design/implementation in general
(I'm still pretty concerned that there are IR changes going in for a
feature that seems incomplete and more invasive than really seems justified
to me - though I admit I'm clearly not paying enough attention to this
feature to have a nuanced/fully informed opinion & so maybe I just need to
step back from all of this - but given the addition of new intrinsics, it
seems like there should
2020 Apr 15
4
Seeking clarification and way forward on limited scope variables.
Hi Sourabh,
Thanks for raising this issue. To answer your question, (afaik) there isn’t anyone working on DW_AT_start_scope support in tree. We’re looking for a solution to this problem for Swift debugging, where it's important not to make a debug location for a variable available until its (guaranteed) initialization is complete.
If at all possible, I’d /much/ rather we use the existing