similar to: [LLVMdev] question on the status of debugging symbols

On 23 November 2010 18:03, Bagel <bagel99 at gmail.com> wrote: > Would someone be so kind as to tell me what the status of debugging symbols > (DWARF) generated by clang/llvm is? Hi Bagel, It should be fairly complete... > When I generate an executable with "clang -g" followed by "llc -O0" and feed it > to gdb, I get "no debugging symbols found".

On 02/16/2017 12:08 PM, Stephen Canon wrote: >> On Feb 16, 2017, at 9:12 AM, Bagel <bagel99 at gmail.com >> <mailto:bagel99 at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I figured that the optimization of this would bedifficult (else it would >> have already been done :-)) > > Don’t make this assumption. There’s lots of opportunities for optimization > scattered

On 12/03/2010 06:28 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > We are working on a document. Here is current draft: > http://wiki.llvm.org/Debug_Information > > - > Devang While this is great news, it doesn't completely satisfy my needs. Your documentation assumes one is going to use the LLVM provided functions (such as DIFactory::). My front-end can't use them because it is not

On 12/06/2010 12:03 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > As I understand, you are not interested in 'how to use DIFactory'. Do you want > to know what are the fields of metadata to encode debug info for a local variable ? > That'd be > > !7 = metadata !{ > i32, ;; Tag (see below) > metadata, ;; Context > metadata, ;; Name > metadata, ;; Reference to

> On Feb 21, 2017, at 9:54 PM, Nemanja Ivanovic via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I believe that providing additional intrinsics that would directly produce the ISD::ADDC/ISD::SUBC nodes would provide the additional advantage of being able to directly produce these nodes for code that doesn't have anything to do with multiprecision addition/subtraction. I am

On 4 December 2010 21:16, bagel <bagel99 at gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps you can add another section just on the textual format? Oh, perhaps you're looking for this: http://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html cheers, --renato

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Bagel <bagel99 at gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/06/2010 12:03 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > > As I understand, you are not interested in 'how to use DIFactory'. Do you > want > > to know what are the fields of metadata to encode debug info for a local > variable ? > > That'd be > > > > !7 = metadata !{ > >

I am writing a backend for an experimental machine that has both 2-address and 3-address versions of some instructions. The 2-address versions are more compact and thus preferred when applicable. How does one go about generating the most compact version? 1. At instruction selection, is there a predicate that can test whether one of the input sources is dead, thus allowing the selection of the

On 09/11/2014 05:33 PM, Quentin Colombet wrote: > Hi Brian, > > On Sep 11, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Bagel <bagel99 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> When the IR specifies a 32 bit load can it be changed to a narrower >> load? What if the load is from memory (e.g. a peripheral) that only >> supports 32-bit access? Consider the following IR: ---- target datalayout >> =

I think I have read that there are plans to generate object code (e.g. ELF) directly in addition to assembly language source. If so, are there plans to support branch relaxation for targets which support long/short branch displacements? This is typically done in assemblers. thanks, bagel

On 08/20/2010 04:06 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Bagel<bagel99 at gmail.com> wrote: >> I propose a new intrinsic "llvm.memcmp" that compares a block of memory >> for equality (a subset of the libc behavior). Backends are free to use the >> alignment to optimize using wider than byte operations. Since the result is >> only

Now that there is good thumb2 support in the ARM backend, would someone please add "cortex-m3" to the "-march" list for the ARM backend. This should produce pure thumb2 only code. At some point, when the subsets are public, "cortex-m1" and "cortex-m0" should also be added. thanks, bagel

It takes two "llvm.uadd.with.overflow" instances to model the add-with-carry when there is a carry-in. Look at the IR generated by the example. I figured that the optimization of this would bedifficult (else it would have already been done :-)). And would this optimization have to be done for every architecture? On 02/15/2017 04:28 PM, Stephen Canon wrote: > > Why do you think

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Bagel <bagel99 at gmail.com> wrote: > I propose a new intrinsic "llvm.memcmp" that compares a block of memory > for equality (a subset of the libc behavior).  Backends are free to use the > alignment to optimize using wider than byte operations.  Since the result is > only equal/not-equal, byte order is not important. > > For

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> wrote: > On 02/18/2014 00:44, 杨勇勇 wrote: > >> I ported llvm backend and lldb recently. Both tools can basically work. >> lldb is able to debug programs in asm style and frame unwinding is OK. >> >> But "frame variable XX" does not work because lldb is not able to >> determine >> the

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 10:31 AM David Jones via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Throw hardware at it. > While I agree that this is good advice with the current state of affairs, I don't think we should consider the current situation acceptable. LLVM has a lot of knobs that Tim alluded to, but first time users shouldn't have to search for them to get a

I'm not authorized to file bugs. Would someone please enter this? Thank you, bagel Evan Cheng wrote: > Right. I am aware of this problem but am not sure about what to do about it. > It's common for a number 32-bit immediates in the same block with the same > lower or higher 16-bit. Since the immediates will not be split until late in > codegen, the target independent

I am writing a front end for a new language and am having trouble generating the DWARF debugging information. I'm outputting llvm assembly source so I'm trying to generate the "!metadata" stuff. I have found the document <http://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html> a helpful start, as far as it goes. However, it doesn't quite match what I see clang produce

The following causes an assertion in recent svn pulls, but not in 2.5. The assertion: llvm-as: /home/bgl/work/llvm-work/include/llvm/ADT/SmallVector.h:125: T& llvm::SmallVectorImpl<T>::operator[](unsigned int) [with T = llvm::Constant*]: Assertion `Begin + idx < End' failed. The .ll code: target datalayout =

Are there any plans to support generation of DWARF DIEs needed for languages other than C, C++, and Obj-C? For example, ADA would need more capability and so would several other "experimental" new languages that use LLVM. Just as one simple example, the "subrange" type can be used with variables in many languages. Right now, LLVM only supports "subrange" in the