similar to: Should it be legal for two functions to have the same !dbg attachment?

Hi Paul, Thanks for your response. Let me actually post more details visualizing my case. Assuming that can help. so the IR before the opt tool is running is: ; Function Attrs: nounwind define i16 @main() #0 !dbg !13 { entry: %retval = alloca i16, align 1 ... } ; Function Attrs: inlinehint nounwind define internal void @delay(i16 %d) #4 !dbg !69 { entry: %d.addr = alloca i16,

Hi Arsen, we are beyond what I understand about how metadata operates. Maybe Adrian or David knows. --paulr From: Arsen Hakobyan [mailto:hakobyan.ars at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 12:16 PM To: Robinson, Paul Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; David Blaikie Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] StripDeadDebugInfo for static inline functions. Just one update: the function causing the segmentation

I'm not as familiar with all the ins and outs of metadata as maybe I should be, but ultimately the inlined function should have a DWARF description contained within the description of the caller (which is why you're seeing the call to constructAbstractSubprogramScopeDIE). That suggests that the DISubprogram for the inlined function ought to remain, and its scope should be the

Just one update: the function causing the segmentation fault is the following: 359 void DwarfDebug::constructAbstractSubprogramScopeDIE(LexicalScope *Scope) { 360 assert(Scope && Scope->getScopeNode()); 361 assert(Scope->isAbstractScope()); 362 assert(!Scope->getInlinedAt()); 363 364 const MDNode *SP = Scope->getScopeNode(); 365 366

Hi all, I would like to understand the strip-dead-debug-info transformation. In my test case there is a static inline function with two local variables. It appears that the function is already inlined before strip-dead-debug-info starts its work. As a result the DICompileUnit is cleaned and its subprograms list has no reference to the DISubprogram for the inlined function, but as there is

Thanks Paul, Hi Adrian and David I would really appreciate any comments, thoughts assumptions. If additional information is needed please let me know. Regards, Arsen On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:54 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > Hi Arsen, we are beyond what I understand about how metadata operates. > Maybe Adrian or David knows. > > --paulr > >

+ Adrian + David Hi Arsen, This sounds like a bug to me. Have you tried reproducing it on trunk? For instance, I see that the relation between DICompileUnit and DISubprogram was changed in the meantime (https://reviews.llvm.org/D19034 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D19034>). If this no longer occurs on master you could bisect the compiler to find the commit(s) that fix this and consider

I've attached a preliminary patch for `MDLocation` as a follow-up to the RFC [1] last week. It's not commit-ready -- in particular, it squashes a bunch of commits together and doesn't pass `make check` -- but I think it's close enough to indicate the direction and work toward consensus. [1]: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-October/077715.html IMO, the files to

Hi- Here is the simple C++ function: ----------- void foo() { } ----------- Let's say, above function is compiled to generate LLVM IR with -g flag using the command line `clang++ -g -O0 -S -emit-llvm foo.cpp`, we get below IR ----------- ; ModuleID = 'foo.cpp' source_filename = "foo.cpp" target datalayout =

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > 2017-06-19 8:45 GMT-07:00 Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > >> Greetings, >> >> I have a Zig implementation of ceil which is emitted into LLVM IR like >> this: >> >> ; Function Attrs: nobuiltin nounwind >> define

Below is attached a full IR module that can reproduce this issue, but the part to notice is this: %Foo96Bits = type <{ i24, i24, i24, i24 }> define internal fastcc i16 @main.0.1() unnamed_addr #2 !dbg !113 { Entry: %value = alloca %Foo96Bits, align 1 %b = alloca i24, align 4 %0 = bitcast %Foo96Bits* %value to i8*, !dbg !129 call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64(i8* %0, i8* bitcast

Hi David If you look at line https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp#L1160 there is IR verification which asserts that only in case of `spFlags = DISPFlagDefinition`, the compilation unit (`unit` field) should be present. Otherwise, it should *not* be present. In the crash case, `spFlags = DISPFlagOptimized`. So, I guess, `unit` field should *not* be present,

> On 2016-Mar-23, at 07:17, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > I have some ideas to allow the BitcodeReader to lazy-load debug info > metadata, and wanted to air this on llvm-dev before getting too deep > into the code. > > Motivation >

> On 2016-Mar-23, at 09:42, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > On 2016-Mar-23, at 07:17, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > On 2016-Mar-23, at 07:17, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < > dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > I have some ideas to allow the BitcodeReader to

I am bit confused - `unit` must be present for definitions, and `optimized ` is also a `definition`, so, `unit` must be present for `optimized ` too. Am I right? Mahesha On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:14 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > definition and optimized are orthogonal (a function could be both, or > neither) - one says this DISubprogram describes a function

When zig updated to llvm 5 we started hitting this assertion: zig: /home/andy/downloads/llvm-project/llvm/include/llvm/Support/Casting.h:106: static bool llvm::isa_impl_cl<To, const From*>::doit(const From*) [with To = llvm::Instruction; From = llvm::Value]: Assertion `Val && "isa<> used on a null pointer"' failed. I wonder if however this was caused by an

Can you please open a bug on bugzilla and attach the ir testcase? Your fix doesn't look right (just hiding the assertion failure) On Sep 17, 2017 10:45 AM, "Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev" < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > What do you think about this patch? > > --- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/NewGVN.cpp > +++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/NewGVN.cpp > @@

Hi David, Sorry for taking a few days to reply. It's not easy for you to compile a Haskell file to see the problem as the debug information is still WIP. Below I prove the IR for a simple hello world program which you can feed into llc. https://gist.github.com/05296933e37e87533a51d493b46aa48d The `out.ir` file can be passed straight to `llc`. Can you see anything obviously wrong? Matt

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > I have some ideas to allow the BitcodeReader to lazy-load debug info > metadata, and wanted to air this on llvm-dev before getting too deep > into the code. > > Motivation > ========== > > Based on some analysis Mehdi ran (ping him for details), there are three > (related)