similar to: [LLVMdev] DWARF location lists

Hello Everyone, I need to have your thoughts on this. Consider the following test case -- ------------------------------------------- 1 int main(int Argc, char **Argv) { 2 int Local = 6; 3 printf("%d\n",Local); 4 5 { 6 printf("%d\n",Local); 7 int Local = 7; 8 printf("%d\n",Local); 9 }

Hi Sourabh, Thanks for raising this issue. To answer your question, (afaik) there isn’t anyone working on DW_AT_start_scope support in tree. We’re looking for a solution to this problem for Swift debugging, where it's important not to make a debug location for a variable available until its (guaranteed) initialization is complete. If at all possible, I’d /much/ rather we use the existing

Spoke too soon... running the inst combine pass does seem to resolve the linker/inlining issue. But the resulting code fails to run correctly. I was expecting the same result that I get when running with unstripped modules, that is passing test runs. When it still failed, I guessed the failure mode to be the same, but it isn't. Not sure WHAT to make of this...

If the source being scanned has "llvm.AMDIL.barrier.global, it will match the first barrier test and return AMDIL_barrier, not AMDIL_barrier_global. On Nov 29, 2012, at 7:19 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Out of curiosity, what is wrong about that? It looks ok to me. > > -Chris > > On Nov 29, 2012, at 6:52 PM, "Relph, Richard"

Hi everyone, Do you know how to apply a If command to a vector in a data.frame, creating a new column? Example: If one species has "1" value in the Abundance column then it is "Solitary". If the abundance is higher than 1, is "School". I did: aggregationFunction <-function(x){ (if (x>1) a<- 'School' else a<-

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Relph, Richard <Richard.Relph at amd.com> wrote: > On Nov 21, 2012, at 4:28 PM, "Relph, Richard" <Richard.Relph at amd.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 21, 2012, at 12:09 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Note that I plan to remove llvm/Bitcode/Archive once Object/Archive is >>>

On Nov 21, 2012, at 4:28 PM, "Relph, Richard" <Richard.Relph at amd.com> wrote: > On Nov 21, 2012, at 12:09 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Note that I plan to remove llvm/Bitcode/Archive once Object/Archive is >> capable of replacing it. The llvm tools that don't write archives >> files have already been switched over

Hi Reid, Thanks for taking this on, I'm very pleased to see improvements related to debug info for optimized code. (You can cc me on code reviews, although I'm sure a lot of the patches will be in areas I am not very familiar with.) While I have a really good handle on the DWARF standard, and have done a bunch of work with the type stuff, my understanding of IR mechanics is pretty naïve,

On Nov 21, 2012, at 12:09 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Relph, Richard <Richard.Relph at amd.com> wrote: >> AMD would like to add new functionality to ranlib (and later ar and nm) and >> to the bits of LLVM Core that read (and later write) archives. >> Herewith a terse summary of the change, which we want

Eli, Thanks. I don't think it's a bug in the linker, really… it's required to treat (stripped) opaque types as different, since it really has no way to know if the caller and the callee really are referring to the same thing… though it then seems to turn right around and do exactly that by inserting the bitcast. ;-) (That does come from the linker.) That the linker 'works

Is there a convention for how the LLVM community prefers to have conditional compilation in code intended to be checked in to llvm.org? Our goal is a single code base that can support multiple LLVM revisions, including LLVM TOT. In the long run, of course, we'll simply be able to refer to the backend revision that corresponds to the revision of LLVM in use. If fixes between TOT and that older

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Relph, Richard <Richard.Relph at amd.com> wrote: > Eli, > Thanks. I don't think it's a bug in the linker, really… it's required to treat (stripped) opaque types as different, since it really has no way to know if the caller and the callee really are referring to the same thing… though it then seems to turn right around and do exactly that

I've got a call instruction: call void bitcast (void (%4 addrspace(1)*, <2 x i32>, <4 x float>)* @_Z12write_imagefPU3AS110_image2d_tDv2_iDv4_f to void (%9 addrspace(1)*, <2 x i32>, <4 x float>)*)(%9 addrspace(1)* %dstimg, <2 x i32> %28, <4 x float> %26) nounwind %4 and %9 are both (stripped) opaque structs. InlineFunction() does not inline this because

Should tablegen detect this as an error, or is it documented as a limitation somewhere that we've missed? In the tablegen-generated file AMDILGenIntrinsics.inc, we have a bunch of if statements comparing strings, many of which are dead, preventing correct recognition of some intrinsics in the their text form. I'm not quite sure what GET_FUNCTION_RECOGNIZER is used for, but if it's

Eric, Once both AMD and Apple have advanced their respective internal LLVM versions past the point where AMDIL went in to LLVM TOT, then we can rip out all the conditional code and just have the one LLVM TOT. This is about managing the transition to that utopia… ;-) Until then, the choices really come down to having support for multiple LLVM versions in TOT, or having multiple backends.

Hi Relph, I'm trying to print the value of 'a' while executing a.s = --depth; I have used break line number instead of break function so that the initial prologue part gets executed. The problem seems to be happening when parameters are pushed into stack and we call a function recursively. For example in the code when we have a int s; inside the struct instead of short s; gdb is able

Currently top of tree is top of tree and no backwards compatibility, other than the C backend, is promised. I think that instead of asserting that you need to check in conditional compilation for a backend, perhaps, you would be open to other options to accomplish the same needs? My suggestion would be to check in or make some branches for the two older versions and then apply your patches on top

Karthik, At what point within recurse() are you asking gdb to display the value of argument a? What I'm wondering about is if the debug information gdb is using to get at a might not be correct at the particular point you are checking a, particularly if that is before the prolog has completed execution. The way debug information for arguments pushed on the stack is represented in

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Relph, Richard <Richard.Relph at amd.com> wrote: > I've got a call instruction: > call void bitcast (void (%4 addrspace(1)*, <2 x i32>, <4 x float>)* @_Z12write_imagefPU3AS110_image2d_tDv2_iDv4_f to void (%9 addrspace(1)*, <2 x i32>, <4 x float>)*)(%9 addrspace(1)* %dstimg, <2 x i32> %28, <4 x float> %26)

Out of curiosity, what is wrong about that? It looks ok to me. -Chris On Nov 29, 2012, at 6:52 PM, "Relph, Richard" <Richard.Relph at amd.com> wrote: > Should tablegen detect this as an error, or is it documented as a limitation somewhere that we've missed? > > In the tablegen-generated file AMDILGenIntrinsics.inc, we have a bunch of if statements comparing