search for: dw_tag_subrange_type

...und: 10) !103 = !DIFortranSubrange(constLowerBound: 2, constUpperBound: 11) The DWARF generated for this is as follows. (DWARF asserts in the standard that arrays are interpreted as column-major.) DW_TAG_array_type: DW_AT_name: array DW_AT_type: 4d08 ;TYPE(t) DW_TAG_subrange_type: DW_AT_type: int DW_AT_lower_bound: 1 DW_AT_upper_bound: 10 DW_TAG_subrange_type: DW_AT_type: int DW_AT_lower_bound: 2 DW_AT_upper_bound: 11 2.2.2 Adjustable arrays By adjustable arrays, we mean that an array may have its size passed explicitly as another argument. SUBROUTINE subr2(array...

...UpperBound: 10) !103 = !DIFortranSubrange(constLowerBound: 2, constUpperBound: 11) The DWARF generated for this is as follows. (DWARF asserts in the standard that arrays are interpreted as column-major.) DW_TAG_array_type: DW_AT_name: array DW_AT_type: 4d08 ;TYPE(t) DW_TAG_subrange_type: DW_AT_type: int DW_AT_lower_bound: 1 DW_AT_upper_bound: 10 DW_TAG_subrange_type: DW_AT_type: int DW_AT_lower_bound: 2 DW_AT_upper_bound: 11 2.2.2 Adjustable arrays By adjustable arrays, we mean that an array may have its size passed explicitly as another argument. SUBROUTINE subr2(array2,N) INT...

...ize 4 <1>< 141> DW_TAG_base_type DW_AT_byte_size 4 DW_AT_encoding DW_ATE_signed <1>< 144> DW_TAG_array_type DW_AT_type <134> <2>< 149> DW_TAG_subrange_type DW_AT_type <141> DW_AT_upper_bound <141>1 [...] gcc 3/4: [...] LOCAL_SYMBOLS: [...] <2>< 66> DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_name i DW_AT_decl_file 1 /ho...

...ize 4 <1>< 141> DW_TAG_base_type DW_AT_byte_size 4 DW_AT_encoding DW_ATE_signed <1>< 144> DW_TAG_array_type DW_AT_type <134> <2>< 149> DW_TAG_subrange_type DW_AT_type <141> DW_AT_upper_bound <141>1 [...] gcc 3/4: [...] LOCAL_SYMBOLS: [...] <2>< 66> DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_name i DW_AT_decl_file 1 /ho...

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:27 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 14, 2019, at 1:21 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hey folks, > > > > Would you all mind having a bit of a design discussion around the > feature both at the DWARF level and the LLVM implementation? It seems like > what's

...= 256, Count = 554992, Ops = 2531428, Name = DW_TAG_auto_variable Tag = 16647, Count = 988, Ops = 4940, Name = DW_TAG_GNU_template_parameter_pack Tag = 52, Count = 9933, Ops = 59598, Name = DW_TAG_variable Tag = 33, Count = 190, Ops = 190, Name = DW_TAG_subrange_type Tag = 59, Count = 1, Ops = 3, Name = DW_TAG_unspecified_type Tag = 40, Count = 24731, Ops = 24731, Name = DW_TAG_enumerator Tag = 21, Count = 354166, Ops = 2833328, Name = DW_TAG_subroutine_type Tag = 2, Count = 77999, Ops = 623992, Name...

In r219010, I merged integer and string fields into a single header field. By reducing the number of metadata operands used in debug info, this saved 2.2GB on an `llvm-lto` bootstrap. I've done some profiling of DW_TAGs to see what parts of PR17891 and PR17892 to tackle next, and I've concluded that they will be insufficient. Instead, I'd like to implement a more aggressive plan,