similar to: [LLVMdev] getFunction() of DISubprogram return 0?

Hi, If I have an instance of DISubprogram, can I get the debug info of local variables of the function, including parameters? I tried to use the getVariables() function defined in DISubprogram, but it seemed to return an empty DIArray node when I ran my pass alone using opt. Do I need to enable any other analysis passes in order to populate the data? My related snippet of code is like the

+llvmdev because I accidentally dropped it On Nov 3, 2013 6:57 AM, "David Blaikie" <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > You're welcome to provide a patch or I might get to it myself. Also this > should be described in http://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html if > it isn't already > On Nov 3, 2013 12:11 AM, "lu zhao" <luzhao at cs.utah.edu>

Hi, I'm trying to inline function defined in another bitcode module via bitcode modification. I'm linking multiple bitcode modules, setting inline related attributes, applying -always-inline pass, but then debug info error occurs. It seems debug info metadata isn't properly updated on inlining. How can I fix it? I'm using LLVM 3.8.1 on OS X (On below example target is Android but

Every inlinable call in a function that has debug info (F->getSubprogram() returns non-null) must have a DebugLoc associated with it that has a scope chain that ends in that same DISubprogram. https://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html discusses some of the debug info IR metadata in LLVM. On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:03 AM Ku Nanashi via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Every inlinable call in a function that has debug info (F->getSubprogram() returns non-null) must have a DebugLoc associated with it that has a scope chain that ends in that same DISubprogram. Thank you for the comment! I don't know if this is a proper way to fix, but after I add DebugLoc same as inserting position instruction, no error occurs.

Oh, I see. Sorry I misunderstood. I'll try to come up with some minimal IR. The assertion stems from the fact that getCompileUnitDIE() returns null and then crashes at DWARFUnit.cpp:301. I admit I don't know if this problem is on the parsing or the generation side. While I come up with the IR, basically what I was doing was using a DebugLoc with scope being a DIFile rather than a

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 4:17 PM, lu zhao <luzhao at cs.utah.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > If I have an instance of DISubprogram, can I get the debug info of local > variables of the function, including parameters? > > I tried to use the getVariables() function defined in DISubprogram, but it > seemed to return an empty DIArray node when I ran my pass alone using opt. > Do I

A few disjoint thoughts; sorry they're so delayed (I skimmed the responses below, and I think these are still relevant/not covered elsewhere). Firstly, why *should* DISubprogram definitions be distinct? There were two reasons this was valuable (this was from before there was a cu: link). - It helped to fix long-standing bugs in the IRLinker, where uniqued-DISubprograms in different compile

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:47 AM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > A few disjoint thoughts; sorry they're so delayed (I skimmed the responses > below, and I think these are still relevant/not covered elsewhere). > > Firstly, why *should* DISubprogram definitions be distinct? There were > two reasons this was valuable (this was from before there

Branching off from a discussion of improvements to DIGlobalVariable representations that Adrian's working on - got me thinking about related changes that have already been made to DISubprogram. To reduce duplicate debug info when things like linkonce_odr functions were deduplicated in LTO linking, the relationship between a CU and DISubprogram was inverted (instead of a CU maintaining a list

> On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:54 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Branching off from a discussion of improvements to DIGlobalVariable representations that Adrian's working on - got me thinking about related changes that have already been made to DISubprogram. > > To reduce duplicate debug info when things like linkonce_odr functions were

> On Dec 23, 2016, at 18:36, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:47 AM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >> A few disjoint thoughts; sorry they're so delayed (I skimmed the responses below, and I think these are still relevant/not covered elsewhere). >> >> Firstly, why

How do I find and update the lexical blocks? Is, for example, “CloneFunction” doing this in a way I can copy? I tried finding the subprogram node in “llvm.dbg.cu” and updating the function: DISubprogram s(*subprog_iter); if (s.getFunction() == F) { s.replaceFunction(NF); } But this didn’t seem to have any effect. Do I need to do something similar with every basic block or something? On Dec

> On 2016-Jan-15, at 06:46, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: > > Looking at this again, I think I was under the mistaken impression that the DISubprogram's scope would have to be the compile unit, but it seems we also currently allow it to be a DIFile (or any other kind of scope). In that case, I suppose the behavior that the backend expects is that every

I'm looking at cases of disagreement between assertions in the backend and what the Verifier checks for (for http://reviews.llvm.org/D16083). One of these seems to be the question of whether a DISuprogram may exist without a DICompileUnit. Currently the Verifier doesn't care, but there are a few assertions to this extent in the backend. Possible options are: 1) A DISubprogram may exist

I saw https://reviews.llvm.org/rGe17f52d623cc146b7d9bf5a2e02965043508b4c4#949392 "Add a verifier check that rejects non-distinct DISubprogram function" (which has currently be reverted) today which made me wonder why a DISubprogram needs to be distinct? David told me the following and encouraged me to ask in the upstream: > May be historical at this point, I'm not quite sure. (I

> Could you please describe what is the benefit of that? Currently there are two ways to provide DISPFlagDefinition, via bool and SPFlag, I would like to make it only via SPFlags, it will be NFC and it will make the changes in parser simpler for moving five flags from from DIFlags to DISPFlags. Currently parser checks the presence of SPFlags to see if the definition is present in bool or spflag

Trying to wrap my brain around this, so a few questions below. =) On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:54 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Branching off from a discussion of improvements to DIGlobalVariable > representations that Adrian's working on - got me thinking about related > changes that have already been made to DISubprogram. > > To reduce duplicate

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:35 AM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:54 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Branching off from a discussion of improvements to DIGlobalVariable > representations that Adrian's working on - got me thinking about related > changes that have

Yes, removing the support for isLocal, isDefinition fields completely from ll files, currently the LLParser still parses it. I want to remove it and update the all the ll files which still uses it. Also the metadata read will support old format, no changes in that. so if ll file has isLocal and isDefinition it will result in parser error. But the bitcode read will work as usual. - Chirag.