similar to: LLVM dwarf info is not complete

> On May 22, 2018, at 8:06 AM, Muhui Jiang via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi > > I am using llvm-dwarfdump to dump the line table with -debug-line option. I compiled my program with -gdwarf-3. > > I first get the line number and source number for every instruction of the LLVM IR with metadata. Then I try to find the corresponding binary address

Hi I am using LLVM Pass combined with dwarf debug information to get all the function's start address. My steps are below: First, I write the function pass to get the start line of each function, which is finished. Then, based on the start line of every single function, I try to query the specific line from the dwarf's line binary table, which is generated with llvm-dwarfdump

Hi Actually, No particular reason. I just think this might be a solution, then I use think kind of method. Querying the symbol table would be a good choice, but I prefer to use LLVM and dwarf information. I am sorry that I am not familiar with debug_info. But thanks to your suggestions. I would like to try to solve it with debug_info. It seems work according to your comments By the way, I am

There should be a line-table entry for the end of the function, which appears to be missing from the dump you provided. llvm-dwarfdump should report this address with 'end_sequence' in the Flags. Are you using a different dumper? I am not sure but my guess would be that inline data is not represented in the line table. The line table's primary purpose is to inform the debugger

I'm not familiar with the target instruction set, but if "MOV PC, R0" is not a return instruction, I'm guessing that the sequence starting at A39C is a dispatch through a jump table. The jump table would be considered part of the instruction stream and included in the scope of the line table. This is not a case where you would see end_sequence; my mistake. The line table does

Hi Dave Sorry, I meant the hardware you're using to compile LLVM - you mentioned it took you a long time to rebuild it so it would be hard for you to write/experiment on tests. ============================= Compiling LLVM doesn't take me too much time(less than 2 hours). The hardware is good enough and I am using interl E5 CPU. What I mean is that it took me a long time to analysis the

Hi Dave I am not going to access any hardware. I am using clang to analysis the ARM binaries. The binary is 483.xalancbmk in CPU SPEC2006. When I use the optimization O0, no crash will occur. The crash occurs when I set optimization level as O1,O2,O3 and Os. If I have to recompile and rerun the tests. What version of llvm is suggested. It would be better if anyone could provide the patch on this

Hi paulr Thanks for your reply. Though DWARF info give me the code address ranges, there might be inline data. If so, how to handle this case? As for the dwarf line table. Sometimes, the source line might be zero. Do you know why? If all instructions should be describe in the line table, I think analyzing Dwarf line table is enough to get all the instructions addresses. Do you agree? I would

Hi I come across the following exception when I use the llvm-dwarfdump -debug-info target_binary: llvm-dwarfdump: /home/linux/llvm-7/llvm/lib/MC/MCRegisterInfo.cpp:87: int llvm::MCRegisterInfo::getLLVMRegNum(unsigned int, bool) const: Assertion `I != M+Size && I->FromReg == RegNum && "Invalid RegNum"' failed. Stack dump: 0. Program arguments:

Hi I am building the llvm IR to generate the control flow graph. I am using autotools(configure, make) to compile my whole program. I use the -save-temps option to save the llvm IR. Now I would like to generate a control flow graph on binary level. I may need the dwarf information to know the mapping between source code and binary code. Besides, I may also need to know the relationship between

Hi Paul Thanks for your comments. Suppose I can generate the control flow graph via LLVM Pass or the default option like '-dot-cfg' with opt. However, the control flow graph is based on llvm IR level. I would like to have a control flow graph based on binary level. Thus, I want to map the IR to binary address. As far as I know, we used to use the debug information to map the IR to source

Hi I know that LLVM provide some debug API for us to know the source code information. For example, every IR instruction's source line number and column number. However, are there any method to get a mapping from IR instruction to binary address directly. I don't want to use dwarf line mapping table as a bridge. I think the binary is generated by clang and llvm. I think there definitely

Hi I was wondering whether there are any methods to know what part of the target binary is code. I have some ideas and hope to get your comments. I would like to use LLVM's source level debugging information to extract the source lines belonging to every functions. Then use the dwarf mapping table to transfer the source level information to binary address. Are there any better methods?

Hi However, frontend may also do various operations on the source code and one line number and column number could map to more than one binary address. Why LLVM IR cannot? Regrads Muhui 2018-06-12 23:18 GMT+08:00 mayuyu.io <admin at mayuyu.io>: > In theory that’s not exactly possible/accurate. Due to various operations > in the Backend like Instruction Legalization, one IR

Hi I was wondering whether I can extract the function signature from the dwarf debugging information or symbol table. I mean the argument list and the return variables. I know that in dwarf debugging information, a subprogram represents a function. However, I could not find the information that is related to the function signature. Any ideas? Many Thanks Regards Muhui -------------- next part

Hi Alex Thanks for your email. But it seems not work. I removed the -fsanitize=address flag. The global buffer overflow message doesn't show. However, no *.sancov file is created after I run perlbench. Thus, I could not get the BB coverage. Do you have any ideas? Many Thanks Regards Muhui Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com> 于2018年9月5日周三 下午7:14写道： > Hi Muhui, > > If

Hi If so, is it able to disable this check. All I need is just to get the BB coverage information Regards Muhui Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com>于2018年9月5日 周三下午6:57写道： > This is a known problem in SPECCPU2006, see > https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerFoundBugs > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 7:36 AM Muhui Jiang via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at

Hi Nowadays I am using LLVM to do ARM binary analysis. I was wondering is llvm available to provide some debugging information on the mode of ARM. For example, llvm-dwarfdump could dump some instructions information for debugging. Is it able to know the mode for each instruction? Or we may write some llvm pass to help us to know the instruction mode? Any suggestions are welcomed. Many Thanks

Hi I am using SanitizerCoverage feature supported by clang to get the basicblock coverage. my tested binaries are spec cpu2006. I compiled the binary with the option COPTIMIZE = -O0 -fsanitize=address -fsanitize-coverage=bb -flto -fno-strict-aliasing -std=gnu89 -gdwarf-3 After the compiling process is end. I run the 400.perlbench. with the command ASAN_OPTIONS=coverage=1 ./perlbench.

On Mar 17, 2011, at 8:44 AM, Renato Golin wrote: >> dwarfdump --verify will do this. > > Is this being used in LLVM tests? This is an idea. It is not used in llvm/test tests. > I had a look at your debug tests in clang and they're similar to what I do here. > > The problem with debug tests is that it doesn't depend only on the > compiler, but on the debugger