search for: dw_form

I think we have to be careful here. We might want flexibility to say "I want to use a specific class" without having to specify the exact DW_FORM. Sometimes, we might even end up in an ambiguous situation and not get the result we want. For example, in DWARFv4, the DW_AT_high_pc attribute has either a Constant or an Address class, which use completely different forms, but if we have just "Value: 0x1234", which is it? In DWARFv3, it...

...ell, except that I am unable to generate debug information. However, if I run objdump -g on the generated object file, it reports that the compile unit has no children: Contents of the .debug_abbrev section: Number TAG (0x0) 1 DW_TAG_compile_unit [no children] DW_AT_producer DW_FORM_strp DW_AT_language DW_FORM_data2 DW_AT_name DW_FORM_strp DW_AT_stmt_list DW_FORM_sec_offset DW_AT value: 0 DW_FORM value: 0 The IR generated for 3.9.0 passes the IR verifier without complaint (including the debug into verifier). I can run llc manually on my IR w...

...debug information. > > However, if I run objdump -g on the generated object file, it reports that the compile unit has no children: > > Contents of the .debug_abbrev section: > > Number TAG (0x0) > 1 DW_TAG_compile_unit [no children] > DW_AT_producer DW_FORM_strp > DW_AT_language DW_FORM_data2 > DW_AT_name DW_FORM_strp > DW_AT_stmt_list DW_FORM_sec_offset > DW_AT value: 0 DW_FORM value: 0 > > The IR generated for 3.9.0 passes the IR verifier without complaint (including the debug into verifier). I c...

Hi Pavel, Thanks for your comments! On 5/21/20, Pavel Labath <pavel at labath.sk> wrote: > Hello Xing, > > I think the proposal looks very useful. I think it will be fairly tricky > to get all of the details right though. There is a lot of "inferring" > going on there, and getting that to work reliably and with predictable > results will need careful