similar to: Question about debug information for global variables

Adrian, Thanks for a quick reply! On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Roman Levenstein <romixlev at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to achieve the following: >> >> - I have a global variable BaseAddress that holds the base address of >> a

> On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Roman Levenstein <romixlev at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm trying to achieve the following: > > - I have a global variable BaseAddress that holds the base address of > a contiguous dynamically allocated memory block. > > - I have a number of logical variables of different types that are > mapped on certain address

> On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:47 PM, Roman Levenstein <romixlev at gmail.com> wrote: > > Adrian, > > Thanks for a quick reply! > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Roman Levenstein <romixlev at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>>

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:47 PM, Roman Levenstein <romixlev at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Adrian, >> >> Thanks for a quick reply! >> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Roman Levenstein via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:47 PM, Roman Levenstein <romixlev at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Adrian, >>> >>> Thanks for a quick reply!

What would it look like without this extension? If we modeled it as if all the register values were already on the stack (an extension of the current way where the singular value is modeled as being already on the stack, if I understand it correctly?)? If it's decided that the best approach is to introduce something like DW_OP_LLVM_register - might be worth migrating to that first (basically

>As the person who has advocated for DW_OP_LLVM_arg(N) before, my main motivation was to resolve the ambiguity of constant DIExpressions: As a worst-case example: > >dbg.value(%undef, !DILocalVariable(x), DIExpression(DW_OP_constu, 42)) > >Is this undefined, or constant 42? > >But if we make dbg.value fully variadic with all parameters pushed to the stack ahead of time, we can

Currently, the debug intrinsic functions each have 3 arguments: an SSA value representing either the address or Value of a local variable, a DILocalVariable, and a complex expression. If the SSA value is an Instruction, and that Instruction is at some point deleted, we attempt to salvage the SSA value by recreating the instruction within the complex expression. If the instruction cannot be

> I can see how that could potentially be useful. I'm not sure how often we could practically make use of a situation like this, but I understand your motivation. Indeed, I don't expect us to cancel out DWARF expressions like that very often. Although that edge case is likely to be very rare, the _direct operator itself will appear very frequently, as it would be used for every

Hi, Attached is a patch for compiler-rt to allow it to compile with MinGW-w64 on Windows. Results aren't that bad. x86 GCC and Clang do everything right, all tests pass. x86_64 GCC fails a lot of tests. This is 99% sure a codegen issue. 38 - fixunssfti_test (Failed) 74 - fixunsdfti_test (Failed) x86_64 Clang fails these tests: 2 - udivmodti4_test (SEGFAULT) 6 - fixdfti_test (Failed) 8 -

Hi Ruben, > I see I missed some curly braces. I also modified spacing a tiny bit. Doesn't seem so. E.g. you have: + if ( !VirtualQuery(addr, &b, sizeof(b)) ) + exit(1); + if( !VirtualProtect(b.BaseAddress, b.RegionSize, PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE, &b.Protect) ) Add space after "if". Do not put spaces after "(" and before ")". Same for other

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:01 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:01 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:01 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I guess you described this already, but talking it through for >>> myself/maybe others will

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com> Date: 2012/1/7 Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] [PATCH][Compiler-rt] Windows implementation of mmap functionality in clear_cache_test and enable_execute_stack_test To: Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> 2012/1/7 Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> > Hello Ruben

> Can you elaborate what "direct" means? I'm having trouble understanding what the opposite (a non-exact value) would be. Apologies, "exact" was a misleading/incorrect term. By direct, I mean that the expression computes the value of the variable, as opposed to its memory address, or the value that it points to. Within LLVM, where we don't have DW_OP_reg/DW_OP_breg

On 11/14/2011 01:24 AM, Marcello Maggioni wrote: > Hi Tobias. > > I worked on enabling Polly accepting non affine memory accesses and I > produced a patch. Great. > I saw that there were a lot of updates in Polly recently, so I had to > redo a lot of the work I did and that slowed me quite a bit. Ups, sorry! However, I believe without these changes detecting non-affine memory

> That makes sense, and I think for "direct" values in your definition it is true that all direct values are r-values. > Why do we need DW_OP_LLVM_direct when we already have DW_OP_LLVM_stack_value? Can you give an example of something that is definitely not a stack value, but direct? The difference in definition is the intention: DW_OP_LLVM_direct means "we'd like this

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:46 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Feels to me like bugs rather than inconsistencies (I'd think of an > inconsistency as "we do X over here intentionally and Y over here > intentionally but they're in contradiction to one another") > The DBG_VALUE MachineInstr actually already has a way to indicate that the computed

> On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:33 AM, Jeremy Morse <jeremy.morse.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi llvm-dev@, > > Switching focus to the LLVM implementation, the significant change is > using dbg.value's first operand to refer to a DILocalVariable, rather > than a Value. There's some impedance mismatch here, because all the > documentation (for example in the

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:01 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 1:00 PM Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> LLVM SSA values obviously do not have an address that we can take and >> they don’t live in registers, so neither the default memory location model >> nor DW_OP_regN make sense

> That sounds to me to be the same concept that I am calling r-value vs. l-value. Do you agree, or is there some subtlety that I am missing? I've been assuming that the l-value vs r-value distinction is analogous to C++: an l-value can be written to by the debugger, an r-value cannot. A memory location and a register location are both l-values, while implicit locations (stack