similar to: [LLVMdev] How to get the variable mapping between the source and llvm bytecode

Hi, I want to get the mapping between C source's variables and bytecode variables. It seems that llvm doesn't provide this mapping, so I think a walk-around method is to get the instruction's mapping. I have to use llvm-gcc, not clang. Any advice? Thanks. Best, Kecheng 2010-05-13 From: Eli Friedman Date: 2010-05-13 15:38:36 To: Kecheng Cc: llvmdev Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] How

Eli, Thanks very much for your reply. That's what I want to know. It works for this example. But I usually have to deal with the optimized bytecode with "-O". See the example: ************** C source ************** int h (int j, int i) { int tmp; tmp = j+i+2; return tmp; } +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ .ll file: ; ModuleID = 'simplecase.c' target

Hi, I tried llvm-gcc -g -O0 on several cases, but the column field of meta data always shows zero in created ll code. Does llvm-gcc emit column # info ? Or I should add some option? Thanks in advance. Sheng. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100426/76b52b1f/attachment.html>

Hi Duncan, But in the doc "Source Level Debugging with LLVM", it shows that llvm 2.6 could get column number. There's an example in the doc as following: http://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html 1. void foo() { 2. int X = 21; 3. int Y = 22; 4. { 5. int Z = 23; 6. Z = X; 7. } 8. X = Y; 9. } Compiled to LLVM, this function would be represented

Hello, LLVM-Dev guys. I just wonder if function variables are preserved in the bytecode. For example, are i and j in the following function preserved in .bc? int sum(int i, int j){ int k; k = i + j; return k; } I tested this with "llc -march=c" and found this was converted to int sum(int ltmp_0_1, int ltmp_1_1) { return (ltmp_1_1 + ltmp_0_1); } Therefore, it seems

Hi! I created a bug report (https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23712) for this failure but then I realized that my approach may be wrong. The following D source contains a lazy variable: void bar(lazy bool val) { val(); } The lazy variable val is translated to a delegate. The signature and the first IR lines are: define void @_D7opover23barFLbZv({ i8*, i1 (i8*)* } %val_arg) #0 {

Dear all, I have the following source code: long f(long x, long y) { long u; u = x+y; return u; }; After clang (with debug option set) and llvm opt using mem2reg, I get the following .ll file *************************************************************************** ; ModuleID = '<stdin>' target datalayout =

Hi all, I'm using my own front-end to generate following code .ll file targeting x86 32-bit: ; ModuleID = 'check.c' target datalayout = "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:32:64-f32:32:32-f64:32:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-f80:32:32-n8:16:32" target triple = "i386-pc-linux-gnu" @.str581 = internal constant [52 x i8] c"---- test number %d

Hi all, Anyone have ideas/info on this topic ? Thanks Seb 2012/3/2 Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> > Hi all, > > I'm using my own front-end to generate following code .ll file targeting > x86 32-bit: > > ; ModuleID = 'check.c' > target datalayout = >

On Mar 6, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Anyone have ideas/info on this topic ? > Thanks > Seb > > 2012/3/2 Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> > Hi all, > > I'm using my own front-end to generate following code .ll file targeting x86 32-bit: > > ; ModuleID = 'check.c' > target datalayout =

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Arvind Sudarsanam <arvind.sudarsanam at aggiemail.usu.edu> wrote: > Dear all, > > I have the following source code: > > long f(long x, long y) > { >        long u; > >   u = x+y; >   return u; > }; > > After clang (with debug option set) and llvm opt using mem2reg, I get > the following .ll file >

Hi Folks, I ran into this assertion failure while compiling a function with a large number of arguments: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21609 I have coded up the fix as per David's suggestion (added a new header field for DIVariable to separate out ArgNo & LineNo). The proposed diff is attached to the bug. However, there are around 175 testcases across clang & llvm that need

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:14 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > I believe duncan's fixed this recently in 235956 and 235955 - does ToT work > for you? It seems like r235955 might have fixed it. However I'm having build issues with ToT in my environment. Is this the right place to check ToT build status: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/one_line_per_build > > On

Thanks John, this is an easy way to achieve this goal, but I'm wondering if this is the only way? I have around 100 passes. Quoting John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>: > On 6/28/11 11:35 PM, kecheng at cecs.pdx.edu wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Llvm can automatically group a list passes. I want to do some >> experiment to see the difference between grouping

On 16 February 2010 20:49, Trevor Harmon <Trevor.W.Harmon at nasa.gov> wrote: > We were discussing that a few days ago: > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-February/029245.html Hi Trevor, On a similar question, I'd want to see what line is being compiled to which instructions. Is it possible to print the before the instructions as comment? For example:

Hi all, When I check the ll code, I found sometimes an operation has one or more "undef" operands. Does that means this operations has been discarded? What I want to check is how to determine which variables have been discarded. If I decide to discard everything that is transitively related to an undef then is that correct? If I implement that algorithm, is there a discard

Hi all, Llvm can automatically group a list passes. I want to do some experiment to see the difference between grouping and non-grouping execution. Considering the following example, if I want to apply transformation A, B and C. The execution order is: A.doInitialization(); B.doInitialization(); C.doInitialization(); A.runOnFunction(); B.runOnFunction(); C.runOnFunction();

I am seeing this with llvm generated code, and before also saw this with gcc generated code. In unoptimized code, debugger would say something like this when the variable isn't used any more, but is still in scope: (gdb) p this $11 = <optimized out> Looking at the debug records, I don't see what is wrong, for example: call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata !{%struct.Object* %1},

Hi folks, I wonder how to get the statistic of which pass has been "really" applied and which one is not. For instance, I try to apply 20 llvm passes on a single C source code. But since the precondition of each pass may not be satisfied (try loop-unrolling to a source code without loop), some of these pass may not affect the final result. How to know which pass affect and

On 3/9/2011 11:26 PM, kecheng at cecs.pdx.edu wrote: > Hi folks, > > I wonder how to get the statistic of which pass has been "really" > applied and which one is not. For instance, I try to apply 20 llvm > passes on a single C source code. But since the precondition of each > pass may not be satisfied (try loop-unrolling to a source code without > loop), some of