search for: diflagallcallsdescrib

Hello, In regard to the review request https://reviews.llvm.org/D74470, I am trying to move five of the DIFlags to DISPFlag for the moment namely DIFlagExplicit, DIFlagPrototyped, DIFlagNoReturn, DIFlagThunk, DIFlagAllCallsDescribed. The llvm ir format for DISubprogram currently has backword compatibility where the isLocal, isDefinition, virtuality, isOptimized and SPFlags are mutually exclusive. My question is, is it a good idea to remove the booleans support'(isLocal, isDefinition) and move most of it to spflags and fl...

> On Sep 10, 2019, at 6:15 AM, Djordje Todorovic via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Sourabh, > > Support for call-site related DWARF 5 tag/attributes is implemented very late, in the LLVM middle-end. > Please note that there is also the IR-level flag (DIFlagAllCallsDescribed) that lowers to > the DW_AT_call_all_calls. > > There is also support for call-site-parameter (DW_TAG_call_site_parameter) and the debug entry values > (DW_OP_entry_value) related DWARF 5 symbols, but it is restricted by the CC1 option ‘-femit-debug-entry-values’, > since the LLDB...

Hello All, I was working on some dwarf-5 features and debugging optimized code support in clang and llvm. Noticed that, DW_TAG_call_site is supported in llvm middle-end. but clang is not emitting these. I was hoping, if someone could provide current status of these features and current status of dwarf-5 features in clang and llvm. That will be immensely helpful. Thanks! Sourabh. --------------

...n 20.2.20. 07:51, Chirag Patel via llvm-dev wrote: > Hello, > >   > > In regard to the review request https://reviews.llvm.org/D74470, > > I am trying to move five of the DIFlags to DISPFlag for the moment namely DIFlagExplicit, DIFlagPrototyped, DIFlagNoReturn, DIFlagThunk, DIFlagAllCallsDescribed. > > The llvm ir format for DISubprogram currently has backword compatibility where the isLocal, isDefinition, virtuality, isOptimized and SPFlags are mutually exclusive. > > My question is, > > is it a good idea to remove the booleans support'(isLocal, isDefinition) and...

...g <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Sourabh, > >> > >> Support for call-site related DWARF 5 tag/attributes is implemented > very late, in the LLVM middle-end. > >> Please note that there is also the IR-level flag > (DIFlagAllCallsDescribed) that lowers to > >> the DW_AT_call_all_calls. > >> > >> There is also support for call-site-parameter > (DW_TAG_call_site_parameter) and the debug entry values > >> (DW_OP_entry_value) related DWARF 5 symbols, but it is restricted by > the CC1 option ‘-f...

...Patel via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hello, >> >>   >> >> In regard to the review request https://reviews.llvm.org/D74470, >> >> I am trying to move five of the DIFlags to DISPFlag for the moment namely DIFlagExplicit, DIFlagPrototyped, DIFlagNoReturn, DIFlagThunk, DIFlagAllCallsDescribed. >> >> The llvm ir format for DISubprogram currently has backword compatibility where the isLocal, isDefinition, virtuality, isOptimized and SPFlags are mutually exclusive. >> >> My question is, >> >> is it a good idea to remove the booleans support'(isLoca...