similar to: [LLVMdev] DIFactory

I didn't know DIFactory existed until you mentioned it just now. And if folks are adding brand new classes to LLVM, can we not follow the naming conventions in the developer guidelines? On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote: > Seems the last use of DIFactory in LLVM/Clang is in: > > clang/lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp to get the enums

Sorry, I meant DIBuilder. On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't know DIFactory existed until you mentioned it just now. > > And if folks are adding brand new classes to LLVM, can we not follow the > naming conventions in the developer guidelines? > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote: > On 18 February 2011 21:34, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry, I meant DIBuilder. > > DIBuilder is the new DIFactory. I've been playing with it this week > and it's much easier and straightforward to use. I'm still having > problems to create arrays, though.

On 18 February 2011 21:34, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, I meant DIBuilder. DIBuilder is the new DIFactory. I've been playing with it this week and it's much easier and straightforward to use. I'm still having problems to create arrays, though. As far as I remember (from the 2010 meeting), the idea was to replace and deprecate DIFactory. I'm not saying we

On 5 September 2010 19:32, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > I've carefully studied the source code of CGDebugInfo in clang as a working > example. One puzzlement is that there's a discrepancy between what the > "source level debugging with LLVM" docs say and what clang does: According > to the docs, DW_TAG_formal_parameter is used to specify a formal

On 24 February 2011 21:34, Jason Kim <jasonwkim at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: It simplified a bit type construction but the overall code did not reduce that much. It's still very similar to the previous style but had a few differences in the IR output. We had LIT tests that checked the IR and Dwarf and GDB

Hi All, DIFactory interface, part of DebugInfo.h, is used to emit LLVM IR constructs to encode debugging information. We are replacing this interface with new simple interface, DIBuilder. Here is one example that demonstrates differences between two interfaces. To create debug information entries to encode volatile type one would use following call in a language front end,

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > Hi All, > DIFactory interface, part of DebugInfo.h, is used to emit LLVM IR constructs > to encode debugging information. We are replacing this interface with new > simple interface, DIBuilder. > Here is one example that demonstrates differences between two interfaces. To > create debug information

I hate to be a nag, but after several days of working on this I am still utterly stumped. Let me recap the situation as it currently stands: I'm trying to write code that generates DWARF debugging information for my compiler using DIFactory and friends. Unfortunately the information I am generating appears to be invalid, but I can't figure out the cause. Based on the advice in the

On Feb 18, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Talin wrote: > 2) There's no means to set TheCU other than creating a new compile unit. This means that you have to generate all of the debug info for your module with a single DIBuilder instance, since there's no way to use a pre-existing compile unit. TheCU is an internal debug info information that FE should not care about. DIBuilder is meant to use for

On Feb 25, 2011, at 5:23 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 24 February 2011 21:34, Jason Kim <jasonwkim at google.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > > It simplified a bit type construction but the overall code did not > reduce that much. The old interface expected FEs to keep track of everything, where as new

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote: > On 18 February 2011 21:34, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry, I meant DIBuilder. > > DIBuilder is the new DIFactory. I've been playing with it this week > and it's much easier and straightforward to use. I'm still having > problems to create arrays, though.

On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote: > On 5 September 2010 19:32, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > > I've carefully studied the source code of CGDebugInfo in clang as a > working > > example. One puzzlement is that there's a discrepancy between what the > > "source level debugging with LLVM" docs

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Here is a patch that does just that. This does not work. I'm getting llvm/tools/clang/lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp: In member function ‘llvm::DIType clang::CodeGen::CGDebugInfo::CreateQualifiedType(clang::QualType, llvm::DICompileUnit)’: /Users/yash/clean/llvm/tools/clang/lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp:225: error:

On 21 February 2011 18:17, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > TheCU is an internal debug info information that FE should not care about. DIBuilder is meant to use for one translation unit by FE. If all the internal debug info information is exposed to FE then you'll get DIFactory. I agree, DIBuilder should not expose its internal structure. This is why, on a C-only world,

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Talin, > > > So, I just sync'd to LLVM tip and added the call to > DIBuilder::finalize(). But > > even with that change I am getting an error when I try to run llc: > > > > Assertion failed: (TheCU && "Unable to find compile unit!"), function > >

Hi Talin, I mentioned it because the error message you are getting is identical (IIRC) to the error message being produced by llvm-gcc before this patch went in. Ciao, Duncan. On 05/09/11 11:21, Talin wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr > <mailto:baldrick at free.fr>> wrote: > > Hi Talin, > > > So, I just

Yup. Now, the debug info nodes do not refer to compile unit. - Devang On Sep 5, 2011, at 2:23 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Talin, I mentioned it because the error message you are getting is > identical (IIRC) to the error message being produced by llvm-gcc before > this patch went in. > > Ciao, Duncan. > > On 05/09/11 11:21, Talin wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at

OK so the problem is that the compiler sees '0' and can't decide whether its an integer or a null pointer of type Constant *. I guess the new functions will have to have slightly different names. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > > Here is a patch

Hi Talin, > So, I just sync'd to LLVM tip and added the call to DIBuilder::finalize(). But > even with that change I am getting an error when I try to run llc: > > Assertion failed: (TheCU && "Unable to find compile unit!"), function > endFunction, file > /Users/talin/Projects/llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfDebug.cpp, line 1306. > > And looking at