search for: local_symbols

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