search for: dw_op_stack_values

> That makes sense, and I think for "direct" values in your definition it is true that all direct values are r-values. > Why do we need DW_OP_LLVM_direct when we already have DW_OP_LLVM_stack_value? Can you give an example of something that is definitely not a stack value, but direct? The difference in definition is the intention: DW_OP_LLVM_direct means "we'd like this

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:01 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 1:00 PM Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> LLVM SSA values obviously do not have an address that we can take and >> they don’t live in registers, so neither the default memory location model >> nor DW_OP_regN make sense

> I'm not sure this will work as stated here. Indirectness is (mostly) orthogonal to DW_OP_stack_value. DW_OP_stack_value denotes that we reconstructed the value of the variable, but it doesn't exist in the program ("The DW_OP_stack_value operation specifies that the object does not exist in memory but its value is nonetheless known"), for example, a constant value. I think we

> Yeah, because that decision can only be made much later in LLVM in AsmPrinter/DwarfExpression.cpp. > In DWARF, DW_OP_reg(x) is a register l-value, all others can either be l-values or r-values depending on whether there is a DW_OP_stack_value/DW_OP_implicit* at the end. Yes, it might not be clear but that's what I'm trying to say. Out of the non-empty DWARF locations, register and

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:01 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:01 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:01 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I guess you described this already, but talking it through for >>> myself/maybe others will

Currently there is a series of patches undergoing review[0] that seek to enable the use of multiple IR/MIR values when describing a source variable's location. The current plan for the MIR is to add a new instruction, DBG_VALUE_LIST, that supports this functionality by having a variable number of operands. It may be better however to simply replace the existing DBG_VALUE behaviour entirely

Debug info today handles two cases reasonably well: 1. At -O0, dbg.declare does a good job describing variables that live at some known stack offset 2. With optimizations, variables promoted to SSA can be described with dbg.value This leaves behind a large hole in our optimized debug info: variables that cannot be promoted, typically because they are address-taken. This is

Hi Adrian & Stephen, One thought here: But — not all memory locations are l-values. If we have a DWARF location list for variable "x" which points to a memory address for the first n instructions and the switches to a constant for the remainder of the scope, the memory address is not guaranteed to be an l-value, because writing the the memory address cannot affect the later part of

It's worth remembering that there are two syntactically similar but semantically different kinds of "expression" in DWARF. A DWARF expression computes a value; if the available value is a pointer, you add DW_OP_deref to express the pointed-to value. A DWARF location expression computes a location, and adds various operators to express locations that a (value) expression cannot, such

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:46 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Feels to me like bugs rather than inconsistencies (I'd think of an > inconsistency as "we do X over here intentionally and Y over here > intentionally but they're in contradiction to one another") > The DBG_VALUE MachineInstr actually already has a way to indicate that the computed

> From: aprantl at apple.com <aprantl at apple.com> > Since it sounds like the problem is only with implicit descriptions, would a rule > such as "if the expression has a DW_OP_stack_value, add an extra > DW_OP_deref" work for the PrologueEpilgueInserter or do we need > something more principled? Right, that could very well be sufficient for this particular case so

> I can see how that could potentially be useful. I'm not sure how often we could practically make use of a situation like this, but I understand your motivation. Indeed, I don't expect us to cancel out DWARF expressions like that very often. Although that edge case is likely to be very rare, the _direct operator itself will appear very frequently, as it would be used for every

> Can you elaborate what "direct" means? I'm having trouble understanding what the opposite (a non-exact value) would be. Apologies, "exact" was a misleading/incorrect term. By direct, I mean that the expression computes the value of the variable, as opposed to its memory address, or the value that it points to. Within LLVM, where we don't have DW_OP_reg/DW_OP_breg

Hello, Could someone explain to me what the rules are for concatenation of DWARF location expressions? For example in lib/CodeGen/PrologEpilogInserter.cpp there is a call to DIExpression::prepend to concatenate the stack slot address of a variable to an existing expression. Now the problem here is that the former is a 'Memory location description' while the latter could very well be a

> That sounds to me to be the same concept that I am calling r-value vs. l-value. Do you agree, or is there some subtlety that I am missing? I've been assuming that the l-value vs r-value distinction is analogous to C++: an l-value can be written to by the debugger, an r-value cannot. A memory location and a register location are both l-values, while implicit locations (stack

> I don't see how this is a meaningful distinction in LLVM IR. In LLVM IR we only have SSA values. An SSA value could be an alloca, or a gep into an alloca, or spilled onto the stack at the MIR level, in which case the dbg.value should get lowered into a memory location (if it isn't explicitly a DW_OP_stack_value). I think the distinction is still important; even at the IR level, if we

I have been investigating missing variables / incorrect variable values when debugging code compiled at -O1 (and above) and believe that I have tracked the issue down to the interaction of the generation of IR @llvm.dbg.value entries and phi nodes. I would welcome someone who is more familiar with the generation of debug information to help me determine if what I think is going wrong is correct

Hi, I don't find DIGlobalVariableExpression in langref. Should it be documented? Could anybody explain what it is? https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html In one ll file converted from bitcode, I mostly see something like this. !8273 = !DIGlobalVariableExpression(var: !8274, expr: !DIExpression()) Only one looks like this. !8945 = !DIGlobalVariableExpression(var: !8946, expr:

Hi Reid, Thanks for taking this on, I'm very pleased to see improvements related to debug info for optimized code. (You can cc me on code reviews, although I'm sure a lot of the patches will be in areas I am not very familiar with.) While I have a really good handle on the DWARF standard, and have done a bunch of work with the type stuff, my understanding of IR mechanics is pretty naïve,

Hi, I have the below test case. --snip-- struct st { int a; int b; }; int * ptr; int x,y; void bar(int *x); void foo() { struct st obj; bar(&obj.b); if(x) obj.a =x; else obj.a =y; for (int i=0; i<obj.a;i++) ptr[i]=i; } --snip-- LLVM IR produced at -O3 is shown below. ref: https://godbolt.org/z/WPlmfr --Snip-- %8 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.st,