similar to: How the LLVM handle the debug location information of continue keyword and right brace(loop end location)?

If we had a very naïve way of generating IR, in the 'continue' case you would actually see TWO branch instructions: one to implement the 'continue' statement, and one as part of the control flow of the 'for' loop. The branch for the 'continue' statement would have the source location of the 'continue' and the branch for the control-flow of the 'for'

Hi paulr: Thanks for your kindly response. Maybe I don't describe my question cleanly, let me show more information. From my side, I notice that whether we are in the continue keyword mode or we are in the right brace mode, the target of br instruction is the same, i.e. for loop Continue Keyword Mode: ; <label>:6: ; preds = %3 br label

This email is related with the code of commit: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120409/140650.html. This commit will let our unconditional branch instruction not be deleted when its successor is the nature layout and its basic block's instruction only one instruction. However, I have some concerns about it, especially in the debug mode. Let me show you some

I have implemented this exact behavior in an out of tree LLVM fork I maintain, where one of my users needed this behavior, and it seems to work well. What we have done is extend the definition of DISubprogram to contain a new field "endLine" which holds the line number of the closing brace. A pass late in our backend uses this information to set the DebugLoc of return instructions in our

Simple Case: 1.int main() 2.{ 3. int i = 0; 4. return 0; 5.} compile command: clang -g a.c In LLVM IR, we have one attribute named "scopeLine" to indicate the left parentheses. But we don't have one attribute to indicate the right parentheses (line 5 in this example). So if we use gdb to debug it: (gdb) b main Breakpoint 1 at 0x100005c8: file a.c, line 3. (gdb) r Breakpoint

I'm going to show the same function, first normally, and then as a coroutine, and show how gdb can see the variable when it's a normal function, but not when it's a coroutine. I'd like to understand if this can be improved. I'm trying to debug a real world problem, but the lack of debug info on variables in coroutines is making it difficult. Should I file a bug? Is this a

Hello all, I would like to enhance LLVM debug info that supports setting breakpoint on labels in function. Generally, if users use GDB as their debugger, they could set breakpoints on labels in function. Following is an example. // C program static int myfunction (int arg) { int i, j, r; j = 0; /* myfunction location */ r = arg; top: ++j; /* top location */ if (j == 10) goto

> > On Mar 27, 2018, at 7:41 PM, Hsiangkai Wang via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello all, > > I would like to enhance LLVM debug info that supports setting > breakpoint on labels in function. > > Generally, if users use GDB as their debugger, they could set > breakpoints on labels in function. Following is an example. > > // C

Hello, Argiris > Can you please try out the steps I mentioned before with the linux > binaries ? I just want to make sure that there's not something wrong > with my setup. Here they are: $ cat dbg.c int main() { return 0; } $ gdb a.out GNU gdb 6.8 Copyright (C) 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later

I'll note that reading along I haven't found any of the proposed changes particularly worthwhile.  I'm also not strongly opposed to any of them - I just don't care - but I certainly haven't been convinced there's any clear benefit to be had by changing our current policy. Philip On 6/22/20 1:44 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > For those who don’t like it, is

LGTM. I think you can sent patch and let the ball rolling! I would like to review it. ;) 2018-03-28 10:41 GMT+08:00 Hsiangkai Wang via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Hello all, > > I would like to enhance LLVM debug info that supports setting > breakpoint on labels in function. > > Generally, if users use GDB as their debugger, they could set > breakpoints on

Sounds good to me. You can also see llvm.codeview.annotation which does a similar thing, but it is modeled as having internal, invisible side effects. These should stay separate, but it may provide a guide for implementation. On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:41 PM Hsiangkai Wang via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like to enhance LLVM debug info

Did this conversation reach a conclusion? My ad hoc tally says that a slight majority of the responders preferred to fully brace statements and no one wanted to totally eliminate braces. The technical arguments for fully braced statements were 1) it's considered a slightly safer coding style and 2) commit diffs with fully braced statements may be slightly more to the point. I didn't

Hi Sourabh, Thanks for raising this issue. To answer your question, (afaik) there isn’t anyone working on DW_AT_start_scope support in tree. We’re looking for a solution to this problem for Swift debugging, where it's important not to make a debug location for a variable available until its (guaranteed) initialization is complete. If at all possible, I’d /much/ rather we use the existing

On 06/21/2010 11:14, Reid Kleckner wrote: > Yes, I have some version of 7.1 installed on my workstation and it works for me. I repeted what you did step by step and it still doesn't work for me, see log below. Two differences: I am on FreeBSD and it's 32 bit. It's svn revision 105825. Plus I have few unrelated patched applied to it which shouldn't matter. Yuri $ lli

Hi, the proposed fix for CVE-2019-6111 [1] adds file name validation to scp to prevent the server from sending files that the client actually did not request. Now, a consequence of that patch is that commands which contain server-side brace expansions such as $ scp remote:'/etc/{passwd,group}' . error: unexpected filename: passwd no longer work. Shell globs such as [abc], ?, *,

Me? I would modify the first sentence from: > When writing the body of an if, else, or loop statement, > omit the braces to avoid unnecessary line noise. However, > braces should be used in cases where the omission of braces > harm the readability and maintainability of the code. To be: > Braces are optional around the body of an if, else, or loop statement, > except in cases

Hi, I am trying to use GDB for debugging my llvm pass. I am following the documentation http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html. When i am doing this the following error and warning messages I am getting. I tried to remove the warning by apt-get install libc6-dbg:i386 command for updating the libc6 but still getting the same. Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc. License GPLv3+:

On 6/23/20 9:39 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Jay Foad via >> llvm-dev >> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 4:47 AM >> To: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> >> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com>

Hey everyone, Might it be possible for future versions of PC-R to highlight the opening brace in a pair, a la emacs? Programs that do that are infinitely friendlier than those that don't. Thanks, Steve Stephen R. Laniel | "I've got a match: Carnegie Mellon University | Your embrace and my collapse." laniel at cmu.edu | --They Might Be