search for: dispflagdefinition

> 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 t...

...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 flags in llvm ir? But it was already "done", we currently have the 'DISPFlagLocalToUnit' and 'DISPFlagDefinition' (please take a look into the https://reviews.llvm.org/D54755 and https://reviews.llvm.org/D59288). The llvm ir backward compatibility does not list the clear requirements on documentations page. This change affects more then 750 ll files. > I am not sure what change will take 750 ll file...

Hi David If you look at line https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp#L1160 there is IR verification which asserts that only in case of `spFlags = DISPFlagDefinition`, the compilation unit (`unit` field) should be present. Otherwise, it should *not* be present. In the crash case, `spFlags = DISPFlagOptimized`. So, I guess, `unit` field should *not* be present, though I do not know the difference between ` DISPFlagDefinition` and ` DISPFlagOptimized`. if that...

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.

...20 at 2:53 AM Mahesha S <mahesha.comp at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi David > > > > If you look at line > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp#L1160 > there is IR verification which asserts that only in case of `spFlags = > DISPFlagDefinition`, the compilation unit (`unit` field) should be present. > Otherwise, it should *not* be present. In the crash case, `spFlags = > DISPFlagOptimized`. So, I guess, `unit` field should *not* be present, > though I do not know the difference between ` DISPFlagDefinition` and ` > DISPFlagO...

...2 4} !6 = !{!"clang version 11.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 9e0b52e2e68412a9a2add18697f4246e5e5ee5e3)"} !7 = distinct !DISubprogram(name: "foo", linkageName: "_Z3foov", scope: !1, file: !1, line: 1, type: !8, scopeLine: 1, flags: DIFlagPrototyped, spFlags: DISPFlagDefinition, unit: !0, retainedNodes: !2) !8 = !DISubroutineType(types: !9) !9 = !{null} !10 = !DILocation(line: 2, column: 1, scope: !7) ----------- Now, let's say, in the above IR file, I intentionally make debug info metadata, a kind of invalid, by removing the field 'unit` and by changing the fiel...

...at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Hi David > >> > > >> > If you look at line > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp#L1160 > there is IR verification which asserts that only in case of `spFlags = > DISPFlagDefinition`, the compilation unit (`unit` field) should be present. > Otherwise, it should *not* be present. In the crash case, `spFlags = > DISPFlagOptimized`. So, I guess, `unit` field should *not* be present, > though I do not know the difference between ` DISPFlagDefinition` and ` > DISPFlagO...

...is emitted by the DIBuilder like !3 = !DIFile(filename: "/folk/tmp/test/test.cpp", directory: "/folk/tmp/test") !45 = distinct !DISubprogram(linkageName: "_GLOBAL__sub_I_test.cpp", scope: !3, file: !3, type: !46, flags: DIFlagArtificial, spFlags: DISPFlagLocalToUnit | DISPFlagDefinition, unit: !2, retainedNodes: !4) !8 = !DIFile(filename: "test.cpp", directory: "/folk/tmp/test") !16 = !DISubprogram(name: "proc", linkageName: "_ZN4test4procEv", scope: !9, file: !8, line: 8, type: !12, scopeLine: 8, flags: DIFlagPublic | DIFlagPrototyped, spF...

...is emitted by the DIBuilder like !3 = !DIFile(filename: "/folk/tmp/test/test.cpp", directory: "/folk/tmp/test") !45 = distinct !DISubprogram(linkageName: "_GLOBAL__sub_I_test.cpp", scope: !3, file: !3, type: !46, flags: DIFlagArtificial, spFlags: DISPFlagLocalToUnit | DISPFlagDefinition, unit: !2, retainedNodes: !4) !8 = !DIFile(filename: "test.cpp", directory: "/folk/tmp/test") !16 = !DISubprogram(name: "proc", linkageName: "_ZN4test4procEv", scope: !9, file: !8, line: 8, type: !12, scopeLine: 8, flags: DIFlagPublic | DIFlagPrototyped, spF...

Hi David, Sorry for taking a few days to reply. It's not easy for you to compile a Haskell file to see the problem as the debug information is still WIP. Below I prove the IR for a simple hello world program which you can feed into llc. https://gist.github.com/05296933e37e87533a51d493b46aa48d The `out.ir` file can be passed straight to `llc`. Can you see anything obviously wrong? Matt