similar to: [LLVMdev] Dwarf info for byref register variables

On Jan 18, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Ken Dyck wrote: > Should addBlockByrefAddress() and addComplexAddress() be doing the same? Yes. Can you prepare a patch ? Thanks, - Devang

> 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

Currently there is a series of patches undergoing review[0] that seek to enable the use of multiple IR/MIR values when describing a source variable's location. The current plan for the MIR is to add a new instruction, DBG_VALUE_LIST, that supports this functionality by having a variable number of operands. It may be better however to simply replace the existing DBG_VALUE behaviour entirely

On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Devang Patel wrote: > >> >> On Feb 12, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: >> >>> Hello All, >>> >>> I have created a set of patches that get dwarf debugging support working for the COFF object file. I also believe I have fixed what appears to be a

> I'm not sure this will work as stated here. Indirectness is (mostly) orthogonal to DW_OP_stack_value. DW_OP_stack_value denotes that we reconstructed the value of the variable, but it doesn't exist in the program ("The DW_OP_stack_value operation specifies that the object does not exist in memory but its value is nonetheless known"), for example, a constant value. I think we

Hi all, While implementing debug info for our backend, we've noticed a problem with debug_line section. We believe that the following code is wrong: // DW_AT_stmt_list is a offset of line number information for this // compile unit in debug_line section. It is always zero when only one // compile unit is emitted in one object file. addUInt(Die, dwarf::DW_AT_stmt_list, dwarf::DW_FORM_data4,

DW_AT_stmt_list attribute's value is a section offset to the line no info for current compilation unit. If there is only one compilation unit generated per .o file then it is always zero. What kind of errors are you seeing ? - Devang On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Artur Pietrek <pietreka at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > While implementing debug info for our backend, we've

I was told that my writeup lacked an example and details so I reproduced the code that X uses and I was able to boil down the issue to a couple of lines of code. Sorry again for the length of this email. Code was compiled on OpenBSD with clang 3.0-release. ======================================================================== With -O0 which works as X expects:

W dniu 2012-10-26 16:55, Daniel Kłobuszewski pisze: > Hello, > > Recently I found binaries produced with LLVM impossible to debug under > Windows. This was probably related to the following bug: > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13636 > > Asm generated from .ll files revealed that some offsets to debug > information were incorrect: they were absolute instead of

I updated DwarfDebug to use section offset, instead of hard coding 0, to handle LTO properly. r107202. Thanks for brining this up. - Devang On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com> wrote: > DW_AT_stmt_list attribute's value is a section offset to the line no > info for current compilation unit. If there is only one  compilation > unit

Hi Devang, Thanks for working on that. Unfortunately after your change it still doesn't work (I've tried x86 and our backend under Linux). The problem is that you put difference between two labels .Lset7 = .Lsection_line_begin-.Lsection_line ## DW_AT_stmt_list and that will be evaluated by assembler to a constant. It has to be a label, not a constant, because it is the linker who knows

Hi all, Consider this ARM assembly code of a C function: 00008124 <foo>: 8124: push {r4, r6, r7, lr} 8126: add r7, sp, #8 8128: mov r4, r0 812a: ldrsb.w r0, [r2] 812e: cmp r0, #1 8130: itt lt 8132: movlt r0, #85 ;

> On Apr 27, 2018, at 7:48 AM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Consider this ARM assembly code of a C function: > > 00008124 <foo>: > 8124: push {r4, r6, r7, lr} > 8126: add r7, sp, #8 > 8128: mov r4, r0 > 812a: ldrsb.w

Hi all, We have profiled [1] the memory usage in LLVM when LTO'ing Chromium, and we've found that one of the top consumers of memory is the DWARF emitter in lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/Dwarf*. I've been reading the DWARF emitter code and I have a few ideas in mind for how to reduce its memory consumption. One idea I've had is to restructure the emitter so that (for the most part) it

Thanks, I'll look into that. (Though earlier you told me that debug info for types could be extended while walking the IR, so I wouldn't have thought that would have worked.) Peter On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 03:52:19PM -0800, David Blaikie wrote: > Will look more closely soon - but I'd really try just writing out type > units to MC as soon as they're done. It should be

Thank you all for taking a look at this. I pasted the C source then deleted it because I was afraid that it was too long to read... Here's the code of *foo*. Its real name is *verifyPIN*. The variable *bar* is *userPin*. int *verifyPIN*(char **userPin*, char *cardPin, int *cpt) { int i; int status; int diff; if (*cpt > 0) { status = 0x55; diff = 0x55; for (i = 0; i

As Adrian said, we'd need to see the source of foo() to assess what the location-list for bar ought to be. Without actually going to look, I would guess that 'poplt' is considered a conditional move, therefore r4's contents are not guaranteed after it executes (i.e. it is a clobber). If one operand of 'poplt' is 'pc' then of course it is also a conditional indirect

Hi all, I have been looking at how to convert by-reference captures into by-copy captures for captured statements and possibly C++ lambdas, and am looking for some feedback on my approach. The motivation for trying to use copy captures is to avoid unnecessary loads that are otherwise required inside the outlined function. This can be important when the outlined function represents the body of a

Could you file a bug report about this (bugs.llvm.org <http://bugs.llvm.org/>)? If you don't have an account on bugzilla, I'd be happy to file one for you. Please provide exact instructions to reproduce the issue including any compilation flags. thanks, vedant > On May 7, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > Has

Hello, Has anyone taken a look at this bug? I really want to fix this, but as Paul pointed out, this requires a lot of care... Thank you for your help Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you all for taking a look at this. I pasted the C source then > deleted it because I was afraid that it was too long to read...