search for: arg_arr

Hello, Consider the following two functions: void foo(int* arg_ptr) { ... } void bar(int arg_arr[42]) { ... } ------ According to the C standard, both arguments will be passed to the function as pointers. However, in the debug information metadata generated in LLVM, it appears that they are also equivalent. More specifically, for both arg_ptr and arg_arr I get a derived type descriptor with...

> > This reflects the compiler's view of things correctly, but is problematic > for a debugger. The debugger should know that arg_arr refers to a 42-element > array and isn't just a pointer into a buffer of unspecified length. This is > something the user would expect. > > On the other hand, the debugger should also get the information that > arg_arr is actually a pointer, to be able to get to its values correc...

On 15 July 2011 06:35, Eli Bendersky <eliben at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > This reflects the compiler's view of things correctly, but is >> > problematic for a debugger. The debugger should know that arg_arr refers to >> > a 42-element array and isn't just a pointer into a buffer of unspecified >> > length. This is something the user would expect. >> > On the other hand, the debugger should also get the information that >> > arg_arr is actually a pointer, to be a...

On Jul 13, 2011, at 9:56 PM, Eli Bendersky wrote: > Hello, > > Consider the following two functions: > > void foo(int* arg_ptr) { > ... > } > > void bar(int arg_arr[42]) { > ... > } > > ------ > > According to the C standard, both arguments will be passed to the function as pointers. However, in the debug information metadata generated in LLVM, it appears that they are also equivalent. > > More specifically, for both arg_ptr and arg_...

On Jul 14, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at gmail.com> wrote: > > > This reflects the compiler's view of things correctly, but is problematic for a debugger. The debugger should know that arg_arr refers to a 42-element array and isn't just a pointer into a buffer of unspecified length. This is something the user would expect. > > On the other hand, the debugger should also get the information that arg_arr is actually a pointer, to be able to get to its values correctly. > >...

On 15 July 2011 05:35, Eli Bendersky <eliben at gmail.com> wrote: > Suppose one would start writing a patch to Clang to rectify this, how would > this information be encoded in the debug metadata, given the dual nature of > the arg_arr argument? Is there a mechanism to support it, or is an extension > required? Hi Eli, The first thing is to make sure it actually makes any difference. I'd get an IR that is valid and can be debugged (but prints the wrong declaration) and start by changing manually the metadata in the IR un...

...lin at arm.com> wrote: > On 15 July 2011 05:35, Eli Bendersky <eliben at gmail.com> wrote: > > Suppose one would start writing a patch to Clang to rectify this, how > would > > this information be encoded in the debug metadata, given the dual nature > of > > the arg_arr argument? Is there a mechanism to support it, or is an > extension > > required? > > Hi Eli, > > The first thing is to make sure it actually makes any difference. I'd > get an IR that is valid and can be debugged (but prints the wrong > declaration) and start by chang...