similar to: [RFC] Function stack size section.

Hi All, Normally when producing HTML with llvm-cov you get an index.html file and a directory structure containing .html files corresponding to source files. Currently when using any of the -name*= command line options with -format=html, the output is a single file (functions.html) containing the coverage for those specific functions. Having a single file is not as useful as the full

Hi Vedant, > This sounds fine to me. I don't think we need to preserve the old single-file behavior. We can add a release note about the new behavior. Great! I’d like to change the index.html page to only include coverage data for the filtered functions and do the same for all the ‘source view’ pages. For the index.html page I plan to do the filtering in

> On Sep 20, 2017, at 7:08 AM, Sean Eveson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > Normally when producing HTML with llvm-cov you get an index.html file and a directory structure containing .html files corresponding to source files. > > > Currently when using any of the -name*= command line options with -format=html, the output is

While comparing debug info between GCC and Clang I found a section that only Clang produces and GCC never produces: debug_frame. It seems (though I haven't verified this with absolute certainty) as though GCC just always uses eh_frame. LLVM on the other hand sometimes uses eh_frame and sometimes uses debug_frame. Here's an example: int f1(); int i = f1(); void func() { } Compiled with

On Feb 11, 2013, at 18:13, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Erik Verbruggen <erikjv at me.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I noticed that llvm-dwarfdump does not show any information about the eh_frame section. While DWARFContext::getDebugAranges explicitly tries to parse it, it fails because the DWARFContextInMemory

Hi, I noticed that llvm-dwarfdump does not show any information about the eh_frame section. While DWARFContext::getDebugAranges explicitly tries to parse it, it fails because the DWARFContextInMemory constructor does not check for that specific section name. A fix would be to check wether the name is "debug_frame" or "eh_frame". If this is correct, should I submit a smallish

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 March 2014 17:31, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> While comparing debug info between GCC and Clang I found a section >> that only Clang produces and GCC never produces: debug_frame. >> >> It seems (though I haven't verified this with absolute

As you might have noticed, we’ve begun landing patches to open source the Sony PlayStation®4 system compiler. Many more are coming. I’d like to propose that I be named code owner for this platform. I already have this role internally for open source. It feels necessary to establish as part of the process to handle external contributions. ----------------------------------------- Alex Rosenberg

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Erik Verbruggen <erikjv at me.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that llvm-dwarfdump does not show any information about the eh_frame section. While DWARFContext::getDebugAranges explicitly tries to parse it, it fails because the DWARFContextInMemory constructor does not check for that specific section name. A fix would be to check wether the name is

No I haven't. Thank you for the pointer. Looks like the problem of the inverted edges was discussed there. But I guess my bigger question is this: why do we still create one big .eh_frame even if -ffunction-sections is given? When the option is given, Clang creates .text, .rela.text and .gcc_exception_table sections for each function, but it still creates a monolithic .eh_frame that covers

Hi, There will be problems with eh_frame_hdr. Eh_frame_hdr is needed to use the binary search instead of the linear search. Having eh_frame per a function will cause no eh_frame_hdr or multiple eh_frame_hdr and will degrade search from binary to linear. As we create eh_frame_hdr in most cases there is no problem to filter out garbage eh_frame sections. If there is information about unused

Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > Harlan Haskins has recently submitted a patch (for review) that implements > --format=html for llvm-cov tool. Please take a look at that patch. For reference, the review thread starts here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20160229/336622.html > David > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Tim Northover via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 15 August 2017 at 19:38, bharathi seshadri via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I find that GCC has an option -fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns that > > can be used to disable memcpy/memset synthesis. I wonder if there is > > something similar

Hi, I previously made a proposal for adding a pragma for per-function optimization level control due to a number of requests from our customers (See http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.clang.devel/28958 for the previous discussion), however the discussion was inconclusive. Some of my colleagues recently had the opportunity to discuss the proposal with a number of people at and

Nick, Do you happen to know why the version reported in 'dwarfdump --eh-frame' for object files now differs when compiled with and without -g? The test used in FSF gcc's configure produces a diff of.. % diff -u conftest.o.g.stripped.dwarfdump conftest.o.g0.stripped.dwarfdump --- conftest.o.g.stripped.dwarfdump 2015-04-10 21:43:15.000000000 -0400 +++

So.. I have investigated more on how a new function attribute to disable optimization on a per-function basis could be implemented. At the current state, with the lack of specific support from the pass managers I found two big problems when trying to implement a prototype implementation of the new attribute. Here are the problems found: 1) It is not safe to disable some transform passes in the

Martin Richtarsky <s at martinien.de> writes: > Rafael Avila de Espindola wrote: >>> I will retry with clang trunk, when it reproduces I will build some >>> other >>> large project (that has DSOs) using our compile/link options (they are >>> not >>> that special, I think). >> >> If you can try lld trunk too that would be awesome.

Here are the linker errors: lld: warning: libcygwin.a(_cygwin_crt0_common.o): undefined symbol: __data_start__ lld: warning: libcygwin.a(_cygwin_crt0_common.o): undefined symbol: __data_end__ lld: warning: libcygwin.a(_cygwin_crt0_common.o): undefined symbol: __bss_start__ lld: warning: libcygwin.a(_cygwin_crt0_common.o): undefined symbol: __bss_end__ lld: warning:

Hello, LLVM. We'd like to start a discussion about what would be the best way of supporting target-specific defaults for options in the LLVM tools. Problem description ------------------- LLVM strives to be a generic compiler and it has a lot of code generation options which are (rightly) not linked to the target triple. However, some target triples do impose hard requirements for such

Dear All, I am helping our test team migrate from gcov to llvmcov. They currently generate HTML reports using lcov to easily navigate where coverage is missing. However, there does not seem to be a Windows compatible solution for generating HTML reports using the llvm-cov tools. A possible solution to this problem is for llvm-cov to create html pages that include an overall coverage summary