search for: dw_at_low_pc

...epresentation in dwarf Case (a) - There is only one concrete function with one lexical block (DW_TAG_lexical_block) entry. Each entity will have a dwarf entry placed under the lexical block scope the same as appear in the source. (1) DW_TAG_subprogram (concrete) DW_AT_name (= "foo") DW_AT_low_pc DW_AT_low_high (2) LexicalBlock DW_AT_low_pc DW_AT_low_high (3) DW_TAG_imported_module DW_AT_import (=> N) (3) DW_TAG_imported_declaration DW_AT_import (=> N::D) (3) DW_TAG_typedef DW_AT_name (= "A") DW_AT_type (=> int) (3) DW_TAG_class_type DW_AT_name (=...

...nly one concrete function with one lexical block > (DW_TAG_lexical_block) entry. Each entity will have a dwarf entry placed > under the lexical block scope the same as appear in the source. > > > > (1) DW_TAG_subprogram (concrete) > > DW_AT_name (= "foo") > > DW_AT_low_pc > > DW_AT_low_high > > > > (2) LexicalBlock > > DW_AT_low_pc > > DW_AT_low_high > > > > (3) DW_TAG_imported_module > > DW_AT_import (=> N) > > > > (3) DW_TAG_imported_declaration > > DW_AT_import (=> N::D) > > > > (...

...# Address Size (in bytes) > .byte 1 # Abbrev [1] 0xb:0x8d DW_TAG_compile_unit > .int Linfo_string0 # DW_AT_producer > .short 12 # DW_AT_language > .int Linfo_string1 # DW_AT_name > .int 0 # DW_AT_low_pc > .int Lsection_line # DW_AT_stmt_list > .int Linfo_string2 # DW_AT_comp_dir > .byte 2 # Abbrev [2] 0x22:0x5d DW_TAG_subprogram > .int Linfo_string3 # DW_AT_name > .byte 1 # DW_AT_decl_file > .byte 2...

...ibling .ascii "moo" # DW_AT_name .byte 0 .byte 1 # DW_AT_decl_file .byte 12 # DW_AT_decl_line .byte 1 # DW_AT_prototyped .byte 1 # DW_AT_external .long .Lfunc_begin0 # DW_AT_low_pc .long .Lfunc_end0 # DW_AT_high_pc .byte 1 # DW_AT_frame_base .byte 85 .byte 5 # Abbrev [5] 0xd1:0xc DW_TAG_formal_parameter .byte 120 # DW_AT_name .byte 0 .byte 1 # DW_AT_decl_file .byte 11...

...x00000296: DW_TAG_base_type [10] DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] ( .debug_str[0x0000068f] = "void") DW_AT_encoding [DW_FORM_data1] (0x00) DW_AT_byte_size [DW_FORM_data1] (0x00) .... 0x00000cf8: DW_TAG_subprogram [16] * DW_AT_low_pc [DW_FORM_addr] (0x000000006e384c30) DW_AT_high_pc [DW_FORM_data4] (0x000002b4) DW_AT_frame_base [DW_FORM_exprloc] (<0x1> 54 ) DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] ( .debug_str[0x00001616] = "FB_FPUMP at HORIZONTAL") DW...

...lists allowing "base_address" then offset_pairs (an improvement over similar functionality in DWARFv4 because the offset pairs can be uleb encoded - so they can be quite compact)) But one place that DWARFv5 misses to reduce relocations further is direct addresses from debug_info, such as DW_AT_low_pc. For a while I've wondered if we could use an extension form for addr+offset, and I prototyped this without an extension attribute, but instead using exprloc. This has slightly higher overhead to express the... expression. (it's 9 bytes in total, could be as few as 5 with a custom form) B...

All of this information is contained in the DWARF debug info that you must generate. Are you generating DWARF? If not, you will need to. If so, please attach an example program that contains DWARF and specify which function you are having trouble getting variable information for. Greg Clayton On Feb 18, 2014, at 12:44 AM, 杨勇勇 <triple.yang at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, all > > I

...99) > > <12> DW_AT_name : (indirect string, offset: 0x0): clang > > version 8.0.1 > > <16> DW_AT_stmt_list : 0x0 > > <1a> DW_AT_comp_dir : (indirect string, offset: 0x0): clang > > version 8.0.1 > > <1e> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x0 > > <22> DW_AT_high_pc : 0x6c > > <1><26>: Abbrev Number: 2 (DW_TAG_subprogram) > > <27> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x0 > > <2b> DW_AT_high_pc : 0x6c > > <2f> DW_AT_frame_base : 1 byte block: 51...

...from source on Ubuntu 14.04. I compile the attached file with: $ clang -O1 -g test.c -lpthread If I run: $ readelf --debug-dump=info ./a.out I see the following debugging information in the binary for "main": <1><a7>: Abbrev Number: 7 (DW_TAG_subprogram) <a8> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x400880 <b0> DW_AT_high_pc : 0xc9 <b4> Unknown AT value: 3fe7: 1 <b4> DW_AT_frame_base : 1 byte block: 57 (DW_OP_reg7 (rsp)) <b6> DW_AT_name : (indirect string, offset: 0xaf): main <ba> DW_AT_decl_file : 1...

...8.0.1 <10> DW_AT_language : 12 (ANSI C99) <12> DW_AT_name : (indirect string, offset: 0x0): clang version 8.0.1 <16> DW_AT_stmt_list : 0x0 <1a> DW_AT_comp_dir : (indirect string, offset: 0x0): clang version 8.0.1 <1e> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x0 <22> DW_AT_high_pc : 0x6c <1><26>: Abbrev Number: 2 (DW_TAG_subprogram) <27> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x0 <2b> DW_AT_high_pc : 0x6c <2f> DW_AT_frame_base : 1 byte block: 51 (DW_OP_reg1 (r1)) <31> DW_AT_n...

Hi, all I ported llvm backend and lldb recently. Both tools can basically work. lldb is able to debug programs in asm style and frame unwinding is OK. But "frame variable XX" does not work because lldb is not able to determine the address of XX from debug info. Can someone give any clue? Thanks in advance. -- 杨勇勇 (Yang Yong-Yong) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

...ram(name: "foo", scope: !1, file: !2, unit: !1) Why? When two functions share the same DISubprogram attachment, the DWARF backend gets very confused and adds all attributes from all functions to the same subprogram DIE, so we end up with something looking like: DW_TAG_subprogram DW_AT_low_pc // f1 DW_AT_high_pc DW_AT_low_pc // f2 DW_AT_high_pc ... etc. Seeing this it seemed obvious to me we should disallow this by preventing two functions from sharing the same !dbg attachment. After implementing my new verifier check (and updating a couple of hand-crafted testcases...

...: (indirect string, offset: 0x0): clang >> > > version 8.0.1 >> > > <16> DW_AT_stmt_list : 0x0 >> > > <1a> DW_AT_comp_dir : (indirect string, offset: 0x0): clang >> > > version 8.0.1 >> > > <1e> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x0 >> > > <22> DW_AT_high_pc : 0x6c >> > > <1><26>: Abbrev Number: 2 (DW_TAG_subprogram) >> > > <27> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x0 >> > > <2b> DW_AT_high_pc : 0x6c >> > > <2...

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:35 AM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:54 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Branching off from a discussion of improvements to DIGlobalVariable > representations that Adrian's working on - got me thinking about related > changes that have

...ARF already defined the location(on stack) which will be valid for the lifetime of the variable, contrary to when the variable is actually defined(or allocated) which is in this case Line No. 7. --------------------------------------------- 0x0000006d: DW_TAG_lexical_block DW_AT_low_pc (0x00000000002016d1) DW_AT_high_pc (0x000000000020170b) 0x0000007a: DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_location (DW_OP_fbreg -24) DW_AT_name ("Local") DW_AT_decl_file ("MainScope.c")...

...values, but this is simple to fix). This seemed to work pretty well, and the DWARF looked legit: ``` 0x0000005f: DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_location (DW_OP_fbreg -20) DW_AT_name ("Local") 0x0000006d: DW_TAG_lexical_block DW_AT_low_pc (0x0000000100000f4f) DW_AT_high_pc (0x0000000100000f84) 0x0000007a: DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_location (0x00000000 [0x0000000100000f63, 0x0000000100000f8c): DW_OP_breg6 RBP-24) DW_AT_name ("Local”) ```...

...quot; then > offset_pairs (an improvement over similar functionality in DWARFv4 because > the offset pairs can be uleb encoded - so they can be quite compact)) > > > > But one place that DWARFv5 misses to reduce relocations further is > direct addresses from debug_info, such as DW_AT_low_pc. > > > > For a while I've wondered if we could use an extension form for > addr+offset, and I prototyped this without an extension attribute, but > instead using exprloc. This has slightly higher overhead to express the... > expression. (it's 9 bytes in total, could be...

...ets LLVM supports I think you're right, but for my case, regrettably, not. Because my target is a Harvard Architecture, any code address can have the same ordinal value as any data address: the code and data reside on different buses so the whole 4GiB space is available to both code, and data. `DW_AT_low_pc` and `DW_AT_high_pc` can be used to find the range of the code segment, but given an arbitrary address, cannot be used to conclusively determine whether that address belongs to code or data when both segments contain addresses in that numeric range. All the Best Luke -- Codeplay Software Ltd. C...

...et_pairs (an improvement over similar functionality in DWARFv4 because > > the offset pairs can be uleb encoded - so they can be quite compact)) > > > > > > But one place that DWARFv5 misses to reduce relocations further is > > direct addresses from debug_info, such as DW_AT_low_pc. > > > > > > For a while I've wondered if we could use an extension form for > > addr+offset, and I prototyped this without an extension attribute, but > > instead using exprloc. This has slightly higher overhead to express the... > > expression. (it's 9...

...9 [ 0.000006, 0.000006, 0.000040, 0.000040, 0.000040] 0.000089 <invalid>:0:0: fqux ... 4 lines omitted If I then inspect the executable with llvm-dwarfdump, I can see that the debug information for fqux clearly lists the location as well. 0x00000918: DW_TAG_subprogram DW_AT_low_pc (0x00000000004207c8) DW_AT_high_pc (0x0000000000420817) DW_AT_frame_base (DW_OP_reg7 RSP) DW_AT_linkage_name ("fqux") DW_AT_name ("fqux") DW_AT_decl_file ("TODO/llvm.hs")...