search for: dwarfs

On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Devang Patel wrote: > >> >> On Feb 12, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: >> >>> Hello All, >>> >>> I have created a set of patches that get dwarf debugging support working for the COFF object file. I also believe I have fixed what appears to be a

I have recently been modifying the DWARF parser and have more patches planned and I want to be able to add unit tests that test the internal llvm DWARF APIs to ensure they continue to work and also validate the changes that I am making. There are not many DWARF unit tests other than very simple ones that test DWARF forms currently. I would like to expand this to include many more tests. I had

> On Nov 17, 2016, at 3:40 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 3:12 PM Greg Clayton via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I have recently been modifying the DWARF parser and have more patches planned and I want to be able to add unit tests that test the internal llvm DWARF APIs to ensure they continue to

On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> I have created a set of patches that get dwarf debugging support working for the COFF object file. I also believe I have fixed what appears to be a bug in how line info sections are referred to from the DW_TAG_compile_unit DIE. I have run

> On Nov 17, 2016, at 5:40 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Greg Clayton [mailto:gclayton at apple.com] >> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 5:01 PM >> To: David Blaikie >> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Robinson, Paul; Eric Christopher; Adrian >> Prantl >> Subject: Re:

On 18 October 2012 02:53, Robinson, Paul <Paul.Robinson at am.sony.com> wrote: > I had a "quality suite" at a previous job; it was the result of many PY > of effort. It was also debugger-based, which is a mixed blessing; you > get a lot of DWARF-parsing code for free, but then you get a lot of > debugger bugs for free too! And you don't get to test the DWARF >

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:18 AM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:43 AM Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 17, 2016, at 5:40 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Greg Clayton

Rick Foos wrote: > The error we are getting is: > “Undefined Form Value: 25” > ... > DW_FORM_flag_present caused the problem. The old DW_FORM_flag works for us. I see this error from GDB 7.0 but GDB 7.2 is okay with it. Now you know as much as I do. :-) Eric Christopher wrote: > [in reply to what Renato Golin wrote:] > > With time, you might get to a point where Dwarf is a

Hi All, While working on some recent patches for x32 support, I ran into an unpleasant limitation the LLVM eco-system has with testing DWARF emission. We currently have several approaches, neither of which is great: 1. llvm-dwarfdump: the best approach when it works. But unfortunately lib/DebugInfo supports only a (small) subset of DWARF. Tricky sections like debug_frame aren't supported. 2.

Renato, On Mar 17, 2011, at 2:00 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 17 March 2011 18:45, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: >> Yes, It'd be good to have a setup to build SingleSource and MultiSource tests with debug info and run dwarfdump --verify on them. > > I tried some dwarfdump on a few examples I had and the comparison with > codesourcery's gcc is

-- 此致 礼 罗勇刚 Yours sincerely, Yonggang Luo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161115/80fd3c17/attachment.html>

On 28 June 2012 10:15, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> I wanted to check that I'm headed in the right direction before I work more on >> LLVM debug info. What I'd like to do is update DIBuilder to expose exactly the >> facilities represented in modern DWARF, > > wouldn't it be better in the long term to make the debug info layer more >

On 17 March 2011 21:54, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > I did not mean comparing dwarfdump output. It is never going to work. Sorry for the confusion. I meant letting dwarfdump verify the structure of dwarf info. Yes, using dwarfdump to verify is fine, but producing correct Dwarf is not the same as producing THE correct Dwarf you need. You still need some way of grepping for

Two functions in DwarfDebug, addBlockByrefAddress() and addComplexAddress(), contain this snippet of code: // Decode the original location, and use that as the start of the byref // variable's location. const TargetRegisterInfo *RI = Asm->TM.getRegisterInfo(); unsigned Reg = RI->getDwarfRegNum(Location.getReg(), false); DIEBlock *Block = new (DIEValueAllocator) DIEBlock();

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > While working on some recent patches for x32 support, I ran into an > unpleasant limitation the LLVM eco-system has with testing DWARF > emission. We currently have several approaches, neither of which is > great: > > 1. llvm-dwarfdump: the best approach when it works. But

In llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfUnit.cpp, the compiler can emit a DW_AT_calling_convention attribute with a DW_TAG_class_type (and it looks like a DW_TAG_variant_part, DW_TAG_structure_type or DW_TAG_union_type as well), but the DWARF 4 specification says that DW_AT_calling_convention is not a valid attribute for any of those three DWARF tags. Downstream object consumers that check to verify

Thank you, Clayton. It works now! Our debugger server responds "name:J28;generic:fp;bitsize:32;encoding:uint;format:hex;gcc:60;dwarf:60". And I also set other "generic" attributes like sp, pc, ra, arg1~arg8 to related registers. I dig a little and find llvm dwarf generator uses TargetRegisterInfo::getFrameRegister() to obtain frame base, and uses

On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: >>> >>> 3) How are you planning to support Atom specific flags ? Is there a way already ? >>> (This would be needed to group similiar atoms together) >> It is still an open question how to support platform specific Atom attributes. As much as possible we'd like to expand the Atom model to be a superset

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 04:58:45PM -0800, Mehdi Amini wrote: > > > On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > We have profiled [1] the memory usage in LLVM when LTO'ing Chromium, and > > we've found that one of the top consumers of memory is the DWARF emitter in

On 28/06/12 11:29, Renato Golin wrote: > On 28 June 2012 10:15, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >>> I wanted to check that I'm headed in the right direction before I work more on >>> LLVM debug info. What I'd like to do is update DIBuilder to expose exactly the >>> facilities represented in modern DWARF, >> >> wouldn't it be