search for: diflags

Hi list, Is there a standards based reason why the DIFlags enum is set to uint32_t[1]? I am sure my DWARF-std-reading-fu is not up to snuff and so I cannot seem to find it. The reason I ask is that we are running out of space for our own DIFlags and would like to nail this down before deciding on an approach. Thanks! Sohail [1] The code in question:...

> Could you please describe what is the benefit of that? Currently there are two ways to provide DISPFlagDefinition, via bool and SPFlag, I would like to make it only via SPFlags, it will be NFC and it will make the changes in parser simpler for moving five flags from from DIFlags to DISPFlags. Currently parser checks the presence of SPFlags to see if the definition is present in bool or spflag if I move flags to spflags, it will create problems hence some of the flags may be present in spflags and in Boolean, as in example spFlags: DISPFlagThunk, isLocal: True. - Chirag....

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...

...riginal Message----- From: Djordje Todorovic <djordje.todorovic at rt-rk.com> Sent: 20 February 2020 14:16 To: Chirag Patel <Chirag at raincode.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [LLVM][DISubprogram][LL format updation query] Question regarding moving DISubprogram DIFlags to DISPFlag. Hi Chirag, On 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, D...

Regarding flags, I was just thinking that maybe we should invent a new DISubprogramFlags type. DISubprogram already has a few bitfields for subprogram-specific things, Fortran will want 3 more, and there's no reason to fill up the generic DIFlags with more bits that are used in only one class. I agree that the array stuff needs to be designed with an eye to handling how other languages do arrays, and leverage the common aspects. Several languages have runtime-sized arrays and it would be nice to handle them all the same way. However the C...

...DIBuilder, I found out that the interface to create BasicType with packed_decimal encoding(DW_ATE_packed_decimal), is missing all the related encoding stuff, Like (Missing) DW_AT_picture_string - should be MDString Node - not decided yet. DW_AT_decimal_sign - May be in DIflags with mask (5 distinct inputs), like FlagDSOverPunch, etc DW_AT_digit_count - unsigned integer, like unsigned DigitCount DW_AT_decimal_scale - integer, like int DecimalScale I am looking to add this info in DIBasicType class (DebugInfoMetadata.h) and would appreciate a...

...DIBuilder, I found out that the interface to create BasicType with packed_decimal encoding(DW_ATE_packed_decimal), is missing all the related encoding stuff, Like (Missing) DW_AT_picture_string - should be MDString Node - not decided yet. DW_AT_decimal_sign - May be in DIflags with mask (5 distinct inputs), like FlagDSOverPunch, etc DW_AT_digit_count - unsigned integer, like unsigned DigitCount DW_AT_decimal_scale - integer, like int DecimalScale I am looking to add this info in DIBasicType class (DebugInfoMetadata.h) and would appreciate a...

*From:* flang-dev <flang-dev-bounces at lists.flang-compiler.org> *On Behalf Of *Eric Schweitz (PGI) *Sent:* Thursday, November 01, 2018 1:02 PM *To:* flang-dev at lists.flang-compiler.org *Subject:* [Flang-dev] RFC: Adding debug information to LLVM to support Fortran In order to support debugging in the Flang project, work has been done to extend LLVM debug information for the Fortran

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:24 PM Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Sep 30, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Victor Leschuk <vleschuk at accesssoftek.com> > wrote: > > > > Hello Adrian, sorry for the delay with the response. Somehow I missed > your message.. > > > > On 09/13/2016 12:43 AM, Adrian Prantl wrote: >

This pull request contains the XFS filesystem driver for Syslinux. Due to historical reasons (SGI IRIX's design of disk layouts), the first sector in the primary AG on XFS filesystems contains the superblock, which is a problem with BIOSes, since VBRs must be loaded up from the first sector of the active partition. Thus, we needed to handle this issue by putting the Syslinux bootsector