Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "local_symbols".
Did you mean:
local_symbol
2012 Feb 11
0
[LLVMdev] DW_TAG_base_type missing DW_AT_name for subrange types
Hi,
ctfconvert is particularly unhappy about that (e.g., ERROR: ctfconvert:
die 141: base type without name). Is it intended behavior?
Simple testcase:
int
main(void)
{
int i[2];
return 0;
}
dwarfdump output:
clang version 3.0 (tags/RELEASE_30/final):
[...]
LOCAL_SYMBOLS:
[...]
<3>< 120> DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name i
DW_AT_decl_file 1 /home/yuri/test.c
DW_AT_decl_line 4
DW_AT_type <144>
DW_AT_location...
2012 Feb 11
2
[LLVMdev] DW_TAG_base_type missing DW_AT_name for subrange types
Hi,
ctfconvert is particularly unhappy about that (e.g., ERROR: ctfconvert:
die 141: base type without name). Is it intended behavior?
Simple testcase:
int
main(void)
{
int i[2];
return 0;
}
dwarfdump output:
clang version 3.0 (tags/RELEASE_30/final):
[...]
LOCAL_SYMBOLS:
[...]
<3>< 120> DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name i
DW_AT_decl_file 1 /home/yuri/test.c
DW_AT_decl_line 4
DW_AT_type <144>
DW_AT_location...
2016 Jun 13
5
[RFC] Embedded bitcode and related upstream (Part II)
Thanks for the feedback! Replies inline.
> On Jun 12, 2016, at 11:44 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Steven,
>
> Great to see the commentary and updates here. I've got a few questions about some of this work. It might be nice to see some separate RFCs for a couple of things, but we'll figure that out after you send out patches probably :)
2016 Jun 03
6
[RFC] Embedded bitcode and related upstream (Part II)
Hi everyone
I am still in the process of upstreaming some improvements to the embed bitcode option. If you want more background, you can read the previous RFC (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-February/094851.html <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-February/094851.html>). This is part II of the discussion.
Current Status:
A basic version of -fembed-bitcode option