Displaying 20 results from an estimated 100 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Question about abstract subprograms in debug info"
2014 Aug 27
6
[LLVMdev] Minimizing -gmlt
In an effort to fix inlined information for backtraces under DWARF Fission
in the absence of the split DWARF (.dwo) files, I'm planning on adding
-gmlt-like data to the .o file, alongside the skeleton CU.
Since that will involve teaching the LLVM about -gmlt (moreso than it
already has - the debug info LLVM metadata already describes -gmlt for the
purposes of omitting pubnames in that case) I
2016 May 08
2
Debug info scope of explicit casting type does not seem correct
That happens because we create the subprogram below as a context to the “DW_TAG_typedef” that was created as a type to “DW_TAG_pointer_type” that was added to the retained type list because of the explicit cast to (T*).
This is the code that creates DW_TAG_subprogram:
DIE *DwarfUnit::getOrCreateSubprogramDIE(const DISubprogram *SP, bool Minimal) {
...
// DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine may refer
2013 Oct 16
0
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are a few places where we break the assumption:
> 1> formal_parameter constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute type
> we call SPCU->addType(Arg, ATy), where Arg does not belong to SPCU.
> 2> inlined_subroutine constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute
>
2013 Oct 17
2
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> There are a few places where we break the assumption:
>> 1> formal_parameter constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute type
>> we call SPCU->addType(Arg, ATy),
2013 Oct 17
1
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:32 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at
2013 Oct 16
2
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
There are a few places where we break the assumption:
1> formal_parameter constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute type
we call SPCU->addType(Arg, ATy), where Arg does not belong to SPCU.
2> inlined_subroutine constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute
abstract_origin
The inlined_subroutine does not belong to the CU we call addDIEEntry
on.
We create the children
2013 Oct 17
0
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There are a few places where we break the assumption:
2012 Nov 21
1
Listing elements of a 4D array
Dear list,
I'm having trouble to see how my elements on a 4 dimensional array are
listed.
For example, I generated the following array:
junk.melt=melt(occ.data,id.var=c("Especie", "Site", "Rep", "Año"),
measure.var="Pres")
y=cast(junk.melt, Site ~ Rep ~ Especie ~ Año)
Now, I want to be able to look at how my species (Especie) are listed, in
2016 May 07
2
Debug info scope of explicit casting type does not seem correct
Hi David,
OK, I got that DIE in Compile Unit scope may point to a DIE in subprogram scope.
But how about that we are emitting a subprogram entry that has no attributes?
0x0000002b: DW_TAG_subprogram [3] *
0x0000002c: DW_TAG_typedef [4]
DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (cu + 0x0040 => {0x00000040})
DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] (
2019 Sep 20
3
Remove obsolete debug info while garbage collecting
19.09.2019 4:24, David Blaikie пишет:
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 7:25 AM Alexey Lapshin <a.v.lapshin at mail.ru
> <mailto:a.v.lapshin at mail.ru>> wrote:
>
>
>>
> Generally speaking, dsymutil does a very similar thing. It parses
> DWARF DIEs, analyzes relocations, scans through references and
> throws out unused DIEs. But it`s current
2019 Sep 18
2
Remove obsolete debug info while garbage collecting
17.09.2019 3:12, David Blaikie пишет:
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:32 PM Alexey Lapshin via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
> Debuginfo and linker folks, we (AccessSoftek) would like to
> suggest a proposal for removing obsolete debug info. If you find
> it useful we will be happy to work on
2018 Mar 14
3
lld/lto/win32 crash on DIE code
I have a fairly recent LLD/LTO llvm crashing on
DIE *ContextDIE = getOrCreateContextDIE(Context)
being null for a (local) variable. (Context is a DICompileUnit in this
case, but it's not present in MDNodeToDieMap so it returns null.
callstack is:
llc.exe!llvm::DwarfUnit::getOrCreateTypeDIE(const llvm::MDNode * TyNode)
Line 718 C++
llvm::DwarfUnit::addType(llvm::DIE & Entity, const
2018 Mar 16
0
lld/lto/win32 crash on DIE code
Hello Carlo,
I tried your reproducer and faced different problem from one you described
(I'm using MacOS Sierra and lld built from trunk on Mar, 15). The crash happens
when SelectionDAGBuilder::lowerInvokable tries to access EH info of this function:
ms_t26_RemObjects_d_Elements_d_EUnit_d_Runnerb_RunChildrennt2a_RemObjects_d_Elements_d_EUnit_d_RunContext
This happens because LLVM
2013 Oct 16
0
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:59 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In beginModule, we construct the CUs, but not all
2013 Oct 16
3
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 5:59 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> In beginModule, we construct the CUs, but not all the DIEs that belong
>>>>> to the CU.
>>>>> In endFunction, we started to construct the scope DIEs. So in
2016 Dec 15
0
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
> 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
2016 Dec 15
0
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
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
2016 Dec 15
1
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
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
2016 Dec 15
2
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>
wrote:
> Trying to wrap my brain around this, so a few questions below. =)
>
Sure thing - sorry, did assume a bit too much arcane context here.
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:54 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Branching off from a discussion of improvements to
2016 Dec 23
0
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
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