search for: codeviewer

RFC: CodeView debug info emission in Clang/LLVM Overview On Windows, the de facto debug information format is CodeView, most commonly encountered in the form of a .pdb file. This is the format emitted by the Visual C++, C#, and VB.NET compilers, consumed by the Visual Studio debugger and the Windows debugger (WinDbg), and exposed for read-only access via the DIA SDK. The CodeView format has never

I was just trying to build lldb-6.0 from source (and had previously successfully build llvm-6.0, clang-6.0, and lld-6.0 from source), but received a compile error while using both just cmake and cmake+ninja Does this look familiar to anyone? In file included from llvm/lldb-6.0.0.src/source/API/SystemInitializerFull.cpp:89: In file included from

I think it'd be reasonable to at least figure out a good way to do type references consistently across the two schemes, but I'm OK with the idea of having a blob of opaque type information for different debug info formats, created by frontends (& don't mind if the library for building that blob live in LLVM or Clang for now - the DWARF one at least would probably live in LLVM

...by MC don't depend on Object)? Any suggestions? Sink it into > BinaryFormat or name a new library? > > (it's quite a few headers by the looks of it: CodeView.h, Line.h, > SymbolRecord.h, CodeViewTypes.def, CodeViewSymbols.def, > CodeViewRegisters.def, TypeIndex.h, CVRecord.h, CodeViewError.h, > RecordSerialization.h - maybe some of those aren't needed, if they're > excessive includes or the like (they tend to seep in all over the place)) > > >> >> >>> include/llvm/Object/COFF.h includes >>>> include/llvm/DebugInfo/CodeView/CVDeb...

...nd on Object)? Any suggestions? Sink it into >> BinaryFormat or name a new library? >> >> (it's quite a few headers by the looks of it: CodeView.h, Line.h, >> SymbolRecord.h, CodeViewTypes.def, CodeViewSymbols.def, >> CodeViewRegisters.def, TypeIndex.h, CVRecord.h, CodeViewError.h, >> RecordSerialization.h - maybe some of those aren't needed, if they're >> excessive includes or the like (they tend to seep in all over the place)) >> >> >>> >>> >>>> include/llvm/Object/COFF.h includes >>>>> inclu...

I'm still trying to figure this out. On one of my machines it went away after a clean install even though my configuration is exactly the same. I'll let you know once I know more. On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:28 PM Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > + Jonas who hit the same bug recently. > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Eric Gorr via llvm-dev >

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:55 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:31 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm looking at fixing some layering violations in LLVM & came across a >> few in the CodeView handling, specifically: >> >> lib/MC/MCCodeView includes several llvm/DebugInfo/CodeView headers

I've been playing with Fred Riss's "line 0" patch for DWARF (https://reviews.llvm.org/D16569) but in adapting it for current trunk, I find the DwarfDebug stuff has been refactored to allow either DWARF or CodeView. That's all good, but the question is whether the "line 0" patch should be DWARF-specific or common. The DWARF spec explicitly states that code not

+ Jonas who hit the same bug recently. On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Eric Gorr via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I was just trying to build lldb-6.0 from source (and had previously > successfully build llvm-6.0, clang-6.0, and lld-6.0 from source), but > received a compile error while using both just cmake and cmake+ninja > > Does this look familiar to

...ssuming the bits needed by MC don't depend on Object)? Any suggestions? Sink it into BinaryFormat or name a new library? (it's quite a few headers by the looks of it: CodeView.h, Line.h, SymbolRecord.h, CodeViewTypes.def, CodeViewSymbols.def, CodeViewRegisters.def, TypeIndex.h, CVRecord.h, CodeViewError.h, RecordSerialization.h - maybe some of those aren't needed, if they're excessive includes or the like (they tend to seep in all over the place)) > > >> include/llvm/Object/COFF.h includes >>> include/llvm/DebugInfo/CodeView/CVDebugRecord.h >>> Also see...

I'm looking at fixing some layering violations in LLVM & came across a few in the CodeView handling, specifically: lib/MC/MCCodeView includes several llvm/DebugInfo/CodeView headers I guess MC could be made dependent on DebugInfoCodeView? But probably these things should be sunk into BinaryFormat as is the case for DWARF features used by MC? include/llvm/Object/COFF.h includes

...uggestions? Sink it into >>> BinaryFormat or name a new library? >>> >>> (it's quite a few headers by the looks of it: CodeView.h, Line.h, >>> SymbolRecord.h, CodeViewTypes.def, CodeViewSymbols.def, >>> CodeViewRegisters.def, TypeIndex.h, CVRecord.h, CodeViewError.h, >>> RecordSerialization.h - maybe some of those aren't needed, if they're >>> excessive includes or the like (they tend to seep in all over the place)) >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> include/llvm/Object/COFF.h include...

I mean, we just skip over instructions without a DebugLoc: void CodeViewDebug::beginInstruction(const MachineInstr *MI) { DebugHandlerBase::beginInstruction(MI); // Ignore DBG_VALUE locations and function prologue. if (!Asm || !CurFn || MI->isDebugValue() || MI->getFlag(MachineInstr::FrameSetup)) return; DebugLoc DL = MI->getDebugLoc(); if (DL == PrevInstLoc || !DL)

Sounds like we have an issue in the CodeView headers related to a duplicate symbol. While this doesn't entirely surprise me after seeing the error, I'm also not sure why this problem is only just happening now. Ultimately what's happening is we have this enumeration: enum class RegisterId : uint16_t { ... CR3, ... }; But your termios.h file also has a #define for CR3. I guess one

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:31 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm looking at fixing some layering violations in LLVM & came across a few > in the CodeView handling, specifically: > > lib/MC/MCCodeView includes several llvm/DebugInfo/CodeView headers > I guess MC could be made dependent on DebugInfoCodeView? But probably > these things should be

Hi Mehdi, I understand the reasoning for supporting this proposal independently from CodeView support. However, I do not think that it is needed for supporting CodeView. When I say that my suggestion is more clean, I was pointing to CodeView support, assuming the changes in LLVM IR/Clang FE indicated in this proposal. Also, it is not that clear from the proposal what will be shared (generic)

I also think that we should keep one representation of debug info in the LLVM IR. There would be a need to extend some of the debug info entries to support CodeView, but I think that most of the information generated today by Clang for Dwarf can be used for generating CodeView. I can think about two missing extensions that are needed to CodeView: 1. In Frontend: File Checksum, it is

Hello, LLVM currently supports emission of CodeView's line table subsection. However, we'd like to increase the fidelity of this debug info with column information. I was wondering if anybody had any pointers as to how CodeView represents such information. Thanks! -- David Majnemer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

The LLVMCodeView library is definitely independent of the rest of the design questions. As far as testing goes, what would be the conventional LLVM way of testing a library for file format manipulation? A test tool that converts some simple text form into a .obj containing CodeView sections, and comparing with a baseline .obj? Or would the test convert back from the .obj to some kind of text as

Definitely having someone who knows both formats well would be an advantage. Dave B might be in the best position to do this, so hopefully he can provide a couple more examples of areas where he has trouble expressing CV information entirely in the backend. Regardless of what everyone ends up deciding on with regards to the front-end / back-discussion, I want to suggest separating the work into