search for: loclists

...s > Supplementary objects > Ah, thanks for the list - mostly I'm interested in cases where Clang's output is not valid DWARFv5 when requested - the new features DWARFv5 enables/allows but doesn't require are lower priority to me. Which I don't think too much is left - DWARFv5 loclists in split DWARF is one I know of & might get to if someone else doesn't do it before me - I'm currently improving loclist emission (quality of implementation - using fewer address pool entries & just general code cleanup to share some of teh implementation with rnglist emission, not...

...> Ah, thanks for the list - mostly I'm interested in cases where Clang's > > output is not valid DWARFv5 when requested - the new features DWARFv5 > > enables/allows but doesn't require are lower priority to me. Which I > > don't think too much is left - DWARFv5 loclists in split DWARF is one > > I know of & might get to if someone else doesn't do it before me - I'm > > currently improving loclist emission (quality of implementation - using > > fewer address pool entries & just general code cleanup to share some of > > teh im...

Hi David, Happy new year ! I just uploaded a POC patch that covers the cases when pointer points to un-named variables using DW_OP_implicit_pointer (references and dynamic allocation). This is using artificial variable as suggested by Paul. https://reviews.llvm.org/D72055 I hope that now it should address your concerns. Scope of DW_OP_implicit_pointer: As we initially decided split of

Let me try to summarize the implementation first. At the moment, there are two branches. 1. When an existing variable is optimized out and that variable is used to get the de-refereced value, pointed to by another pointer/reference variable. Such cases are being addressed using Dwarf expression DW_OP_implicit_pointer as de-referenced value of a pointer can be seen implicitly (using another

..., or not by default at all/only under a flag? So, I've brought this up a few times before - that DWARFv5 does a pretty good job of reducing relocations (& reducing .o file size with Split DWARF) by allowing many uses of addresses to include some kind of address+offset (debug_rnglists and loclists allowing "base_address" then offset_pairs (an improvement over similar functionality in DWARFv4 because the offset pairs can be uleb encoded - so they can be quite compact)) But one place that DWARFv5 misses to reduce relocations further is direct addresses from debug_info, such as DW_AT...

Hi llvm-dev, cfe-dev, It's been a while since our team is investigating DebugInfo in LLVM, we're looking forward to contribute and enhance in LLVM DebugInfo. We,'ve been investigating mostly on DWARF-5 aspects -- couple of them to mention-- 1. Language aspects 2. Location mostly optimized out ones 3. DebugInfo conformance to DWARF-5 To avoid getting conflicted with some body

Hi everyone, This happens every time I start winedbg, no matter what program I want to debug. It's ubuntu feisty fawn and I have built wine from sources. user@machine:~$ winedbg "C:\Program Files\Diablo II\Diablo II.exe" WineDbg starting on pid 000a wine: Unhandled page fault on read access to 0x00000000 at address 0xb7d5cc23 (thread 0009), starting debugger... Unhandled exception:

...ally flush out a few more issues (or >> >not -but build confidence that there aren't more issues) I think is an >> >appropriate way to roll out a change like this. >> >> >(minor doubt: I wonder how well the bfd tombstoning works in DWARFv5 >> >(rnglists/loclists) or in debug_range/debug_loc that uses base address >> >specifiers, where the zero-without-addend doesn't have a chance to >> >make an empty range (because it's not a start/end pair, it's a >> >start+offset pair - so the offset remains non-zero)... if bfd >...

Thanks, David for updating us. Regarding, mail address, can use anyone{@gmail or @amd}. but sourav0311 at gmail.com works best for me for mailing lists related stuff. Regarding, GDB side of DWARFv5 side of things, we've testing GDB-8.3 WRT DWARFv5 clang and gcc binaries to get better idea of debuggability of clang generated binaries with GDB. Primary motivation being GDB better handling of

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:59 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > Welcome Sourabh, > > > > There are many bits of DWARF-5 that haven’t been implemented. > Got a short list, by chance? > I know there is currently no big push within Sony to “fill in the > corners” for v5, as we have been more focused on quality of debug info for > optimized

...>not -but build confidence that there aren't more issues) I think is > an > > >> >appropriate way to roll out a change like this. > > >> > > >> >(minor doubt: I wonder how well the bfd tombstoning works in DWARFv5 > > >> >(rnglists/loclists) or in debug_range/debug_loc that uses base > address > > >> >specifiers, where the zero-without-addend doesn't have a chance to > > >> >make an empty range (because it's not a start/end pair, it's a > > >> >start+offset pair - so the offs...

...nce that there aren't more issues) I think is an >>> > >> >appropriate way to roll out a change like this. >>> > >> >>> > >> >(minor doubt: I wonder how well the bfd tombstoning works in DWARFv5 >>> > >> >(rnglists/loclists) or in debug_range/debug_loc that uses base address >>> > >> >specifiers, where the zero-without-addend doesn't have a chance to >>> > >> >make an empty range (because it's not a start/end pair, it's a >>> > >> >start+offset...

On 31/03/2020 18:29, Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev wrote: > It's great to see someone interested in improving yaml2obj! > > As far as I'm concerned, the main problem with yam2obj for DWARF testcases is that at the moment, it is both too high-level and too low-level at the same time. For writing debug info testcases, yaml2obj at the moment does not add anything on top of assembler.

...gt; > > > > > > So, I've brought this up a few times before - that DWARFv5 does a pretty > good job of reducing relocations (& reducing .o file size with Split > DWARF) by allowing many uses of addresses to include some kind of > address+offset (debug_rnglists and loclists allowing "base_address" then > offset_pairs (an improvement over similar functionality in DWARFv4 because > the offset pairs can be uleb encoded - so they can be quite compact)) > > > > But one place that DWARFv5 misses to reduce relocations further is > direct addres...

...k is an > > >>> > >> >appropriate way to roll out a change like this. > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> >(minor doubt: I wonder how well the bfd tombstoning works in > DWARFv5 > > >>> > >> >(rnglists/loclists) or in debug_range/debug_loc that uses base > address > > >>> > >> >specifiers, where the zero-without-addend doesn't have a > chance to > > >>> > >> >make an empty range (because it's not a start/end pair, it's a > > &gt...

Hi folks, I am pushing a PoC patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D70833 for review which includes the case when temporary is promoted. For such cases it generates IR as call void @llvm.dbg.derefval(metadata i32 3, metadata !25, metadata !DIExpression(DW_OP_LLVM_explicit_pointer, DW_OP_LLVM_arg0)), !dbg !32 And llvm-darfdump output looks like ------------- 0x0000007b:

...#39;t more issues) I think is an > >>> > >> >appropriate way to roll out a change like this. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> >(minor doubt: I wonder how well the bfd tombstoning works in DWARFv5 > >>> > >> >(rnglists/loclists) or in debug_range/debug_loc that uses base address > >>> > >> >specifiers, where the zero-without-addend doesn't have a chance to > >>> > >> >make an empty range (because it's not a start/end pair, it's a > >>> > >> &...

...;> > >>> > >> >appropriate way to roll out a change like this. >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >(minor doubt: I wonder how well the bfd tombstoning works in DWARFv5 >> > >>> > >> >(rnglists/loclists) or in debug_range/debug_loc that uses base address >> > >>> > >> >specifiers, where the zero-without-addend doesn't have a chance to >> > >>> > >> >make an empty range (because it's not a start/end pair, it's a >> > &...

...gt; > > > So, I've brought this up a few times before - that DWARFv5 does a pretty > > good job of reducing relocations (& reducing .o file size with Split > > DWARF) by allowing many uses of addresses to include some kind of > > address+offset (debug_rnglists and loclists allowing "base_address" then > > offset_pairs (an improvement over similar functionality in DWARFv4 because > > the offset pairs can be uleb encoded - so they can be quite compact)) > > > > > > But one place that DWARFv5 misses to reduce relocations further i...

...; >appropriate way to roll out a change like this. >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >> >(minor doubt: I wonder how well the bfd tombstoning works >> in DWARFv5 >> >> > >>> > >> >(rnglists/loclists) or in debug_range/debug_loc that uses >> base address >> >> > >>> > >> >specifiers, where the zero-without-addend doesn't have a >> chance to >> >> > >>> > >> >make an empty range (because it's not a start/...