Displaying 20 results from an estimated 81 matches for "callstack".
2012 Feb 17
2
DC Universe Online not working with new nvidia drivers
...x027bdad0"
ESI="0xf7627380"
EBP="0x027bdb00"
EIP="0xf7445ea3"
SEGCS="0x00000023"
EFLAGS="0x00010202"
ESP="0x027bdaa8"
SEGSS="0x0000002b">
<callstack>
</callstack>
<stack>
<![CDATA[
027BDA88 00 00 00 00 00 db 7b 02 - d1 17 28 f7 f8 86 2c f7 ......{...(...,.
027BDA98 00 00 00 00 b8 64 14 00 - f4 4f 62 f7 80 73 62 f7 .....d...Ob..sb.
*027BDAA8 47 69...
2017 Nov 27
3
[LLD] Slow callstacks in gdb
Hi,
for programs linked with lld it's substantially slower to get callstacks
in gdb, in comparison to gold-linked programs. Two measurements:
lld gold
15 sec 3 sec
6 sec 2 sec
This is a debug build, rather large binaries (lots of templates). I have
seen even worse performance for debug+UBSan builds. I think code size (and
therefore DWARF size) has an impact. Is th...
2017 Nov 27
2
[LLD] Slow callstacks in gdb
...being built by gcc or clang?
Cheers,
Rafael
Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> writes:
> Martin Richtarsky via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> for programs linked with lld it's substantially slower to get callstacks
>> in gdb, in comparison to gold-linked programs. Two measurements:
>>
>> lld gold
>> 15 sec 3 sec
>> 6 sec 2 sec
>
> Are both using --gdb-index? Can you try lld trunk if so?
>
> Is any of the programs you tested open source?
>
> Cheers,
>...
2020 Feb 29
4
[MCJIT] messy call stack debug on x64 code in VisualStudio
Hi,
I'm using IR and MCJIT to compile a script language. I debug it with on the
fly generated .pdb files. During debugging, almost each time I step into a
function, I loose information about calling function inside the visual
studio callstack view or I have a bunch of pure addresses in the callstack
in between the current function and the calling function, for example :
MyJit.dll!MyCurrentFunction()
[0x1234567887654321]
[0x8765432112345678]
MyJit.dll!MyCallingFunction()
...
It looks like visual studio get lost while walking up stack....
2010 Dec 23
0
[LLVMdev] Problem with callstack/frame-index
Hello!
I'm trying to get stack-passed arguments working on my back-end, and I've
run into an issue I can't resolve.
I got the code working to the point that function F1 can call F2 with 5+
arguments fine (we pass 4 in registers). The problem is if F2 then calls
another function F3 with 5+ args, then all reading of the stack/call frame
is off, the address doesn't get compensated
2017 Dec 02
2
[LLD] Slow callstacks in gdb
Martin Richtarsky <s at martinien.de> writes:
> Rafael Avila de Espindola wrote :
>>> Maybe gdb needs to fall back to slower line number resolution because
>>> e.g.
>>> low and high bounds cannot be retrieved and debug_line_address is 0?
>>
>> It is hard to know without a reproducible. I tried gdb on clang itself
>> build with both clang and
2017 Nov 28
2
[LLD] Slow callstacks in gdb
Martin Richtarsky <s at martinien.de> writes:
> Hi,
>
>> Is the program being built by gcc or clang?
> gcc 6, but I can try clang.
>
>> Are both using --gdb-index? Can you try lld trunk if so?
> No.
>
>> Is any of the programs you tested open source?
> No.
>
> Here is some more info. I enabled "set verbose on" in gdb. With this
>
2017 Dec 05
2
[LLD] Slow callstacks in gdb
Martin Richtarsky <s at martinien.de> writes:
> Output looks as follows [1] Seems sh_offset is missing?
That is what readelf prints as Off
> [17] .rela.text RELA 0000000000000000 071423 001728 18
> 1 4 8
The offset of rela text should have been aligned, but it is not. Can you
report a bug on icc? As a work around using the gnu assembler if
possible
2017 Dec 05
2
[LLD] Slow callstacks in gdb
Martin Richtarsky <s at martinien.de> writes:
> Rafael Avila de Espindola wrote:
>>> I will retry with clang trunk, when it reproduces I will build some
>>> other
>>> large project (that has DSOs) using our compile/link options (they are
>>> not
>>> that special, I think).
>>
>> If you can try lld trunk too that would be awesome.
2020 Mar 01
2
[MCJIT] messy call stack debug on x64 code in VisualStudio
...te:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm using IR and MCJIT to compile a script language. I debug it with on
>> the fly generated .pdb files. During debugging, almost each time I step
>> into a function, I loose information about calling function inside the
>> visual studio callstack view or I have a bunch of pure addresses in the
>> callstack in between the current function and the calling function, for
>> example :
>>
>> MyJit.dll!MyCurrentFunction()
>> [0x1234567887654321]
>> [0x8765432112345678]
>> MyJit.dll!MyCallingFunction()
>...
2017 Dec 06
2
[LLD] Slow callstacks in gdb
Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <
> rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Martin Richtarsky <s at martinien.de> writes:
>>
>> > Output looks as follows [1] Seems sh_offset is missing?
>>
>> That is what readelf prints as Off
>>
>> > [17] .rela.text
2015 Apr 28
2
[LLVMdev] MCJIT longjmp failure on Win64 - was Invalid or unaligned stack exception on Windows
On 28 April 2015 at 00:30, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
> I think Paweł identified the problem. The frames on the stack between the
> setjmp and longjmp must have valid unwind information, which is described
> here:
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ft9x1kdx.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396
>
> In particular, it has this line about JITed code:
>
2007 Aug 17
4
RSpec --format --html:/path/to/file.html
Greetings everyone. I''m learning RSpec and am pretty fresh to Ruby/Rails,
but am so excited I can''t help jumping in. I''m running before I can walk
here. :-)
Yesterday I tried outputting test results to HTML instead of colorized
plain text. It looked like there were some entries in the change log for
the 1.0.5 release allowing RSpec to do what I wanted.
I tried
2005 Oct 11
1
RoR on Apache
...n Webrick):
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::
NoMethodError in <controller not set>#<action not set>
WARNING: You have a nil object when you probably didn''t expect it! Odds
are you
want an instance of Array instead.
Look in the callstack to see where you''re working with an object that could
be nil.
Investigate your methods and make sure the object is what you expect!
Show framework trace
C:/ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.9.1/lib/action_controller/routin
g.rb:429:in `recognize!''
C:/ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1....
2016 Apr 22
2
RFC: EfficiencySanitizer Cache Fragmentation tool
.... If the highest bit of a shadow
byte is set, we increment the 7-bit counter (to the maximum of 127; if this
is found to be too small we could use separate storage for an additional
counter for hot fields).
-
Memory allocation wrapping:
When a heap object is freed, we acquire the callstack and its access
pattern in the shadow memory. We may coalesce them based on the
allocation/free callstack.
The report from the tool to the user at the end of execution would
essentially be a list of objects that have some significant fragmented
access pattern. We expect the time overhead of...
2018 Jan 19
0
[JIT] Evaluating Debug-Metadata in bitcode
Hi Björn,
I'm not sure I understand what you are actually trying to achieve.
Do you want to be able to debug from your main code, and step into the
JITed code?
Do you want to be able to set breakpoints, list callstacks, etc in the
JITed code?
Do you want to, from a crash, identify where in your JITed code it went
wrong?
The first two are definitely one or more order(s) of magnitude harder to
solve than the third one, since you basically have to tell your debugger
that "I've now added some more code her...
2020 Feb 18
4
Moving the AVR backend out of experimental
>
> Should we just make it a normal target?
>
My only remaining reservation here - the generic DebugInfo tests, which
presumably due to an unimplemented 16-bit branch somewhere deep in the
llvm-objdump callstack.
The AVR backend passes virtually all of the LLVM test suite but these when
avr-unknown-unknown is set as the default target. It feels like the
inclusion of ~80 XFAILs for these DebugInfo tests would be the only wart on
the experimental->official code review. I've had a couple long attempts...
2008 Sep 12
2
[LLVMdev] Tail-calling
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
> AFAIK, 128-bit integers should work just fine on x86 with LLVM.
Bad example then, I meant I am wondering about how I should have my
language handle things that are platform specific, whether I should
expose them and let the user make 'best judgment calls' which could
break on the distributed
2008 Sep 14
0
[LLVMdev] Tail-calling
This language has functions that will have to be tail-called due to
having the ability to 'pause' its callstack, but some functions will
not and I was just planning to call them like normal functions. I am
wondering, would it be 'faster' (at execution of the compiled code) to
just put everything in the tail-call way, or is it still faster to
call functions like normal when I can?
2011 Jan 12
2
Crash when using odd frame size
Hi
I noticed a crash issue when I passed the following values:
celt_mode_create(96000, 258, &e);
CELTMode->mdct.kfft[0] is not initialized after calling?clt_mdct_init() and when?celt_mode_destroy() is called it tries to dereference this value in kiss_fft_free().
-- Bjoern
Here's the callstack:
!kiss_fft_free(const kiss_fft_state * cfg=0x00000000) ?Line 650 + 0x3 bytes C!clt_mdct_clear(mdct_lookup * l=0x0111bc04) ?Line 103 + 0x10 bytes C!celt_mode_destroy(CELTMode * mode=0x0111bbd8) ?Line 432 + 0xc bytes C!celt_mode_create(int Fs=96000, int frame_size=258, int * error=0x0017fa88) ?Line 4...