search for: dibuid

...Doug's rules for merging C types do not apply), would you like it to be done on AST types or IR debug info metadata types? One possibility is to hash the IR debug info types in DIBuilder::finalize. When we are creating the MD nodes, we can provide a simple identifier that is unique within the DIBuider. In finailize(), we update the identifier to include a hash value (prepend the type name), so types constructed by one DIBuilder will be unique from types constructed by another DIBUilder unless they are structurally equivalent by having the same hash. We can then use the folding set to do the u...

On Jan 16, 2012, at 1:35 AM, Seb wrote: > Can someone give me more information on llvm.dbg.value call because documentation is unclear to me ? > Why is there an 'llvm.dbg.lv.foo' created ? This is also not documented. Which documentation? The documentation is from current sources which you aren't using. I'd suggest you update to at least 3.0, preferably top of tree, and

>> It depends upon the goals. If the goal is to make debug information >> post-link smaller then just using the type hashing machinery for >> structs will be sufficient. > > > By "the type hashing machinery for structs", are you referring to the type > hashing at the back end? > I am, yes, since there's no other place we do currently. >>

Hi all, I'm using clang + LLVM 2.9. Let's consider following code sample: extern void bar(int x) ; void foo(int y) { bar(y) ; } When compiled with clang at -O2 -g I've got following LLVM file: ; ModuleID = 'localvar.c' target datalayout =

...do the hashing? Thanks, Manman would you like it to be done on AST types or IR debug info metadata types? > > One possibility is to hash the IR debug info types in DIBuilder::finalize. > When we are creating the MD nodes, we can provide a simple identifier that > is unique within the DIBuider. In finailize(), > we update the identifier to include a hash value (prepend the type name), > so types constructed by one DIBuilder will be unique > from types constructed by another DIBUilder unless they are structurally > equivalent by having the same hash. > > We can then us...

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>wrote: > > > > Since we don't have ODR, we may have macros defined differently for a > struct > > in a .h file, > > thus having two versions of the struct from two different CU. It seems > that > > we can't assume > > structs with the same name and defined in the same

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> >> It depends upon the goals. If the