Displaying 20 results from an estimated 20000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Call for Removal: remove BreakpointPrinter and print-breakpoints-for-testing"
2013 Oct 11
0
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
Ping :)
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> David,
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing!
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:36 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Might be
2013 Oct 11
2
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
The first patch seems fine, though the comment on the modified addDIEEntry
function is a bit confusing:
-/// addDIEEntry - Add a DIE attribute data and value.
+/// addDIEEntry - Add a DIE attribute data and value. The form should be
+/// a reference form: ref1, ref2, ref4, ref8, ref_udata, ref_addr,
+/// or ref_sig8. A form can be chosen inside addDIEEntry.
When the comment says "The form
2013 Nov 22
0
[LLVMdev] bit code file incompatibility due to debug info changes
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:08 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Manman Ren
2013 Oct 10
4
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David,
>
> Thanks for reviewing!
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:36 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Might be easier if these were on Phabricator, but here are some thoughts:
>>
>> 0001:
>> This patch generally, while separated for
2013 Nov 22
0
[LLVMdev] bit code file incompatibility due to debug info changes
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:01 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:26 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at
2013 Nov 22
0
[LLVMdev] bit code file incompatibility due to debug info changes
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:08 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:01 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu,
2013 Oct 09
0
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
Ping
-Manman
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> The first patch adds support for ref_addr.
> Most of it is from r176882, but instead of always using an integer for
> ref_addr, we use label + offset for relocation on non-darwin platforms.
>
> The second patch is a modified version of r191792.
> The main
2013 Oct 17
1
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 2:00 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> patch looks fairly obvious/trivial
>>>
>>> Have you tried any of the test cases I've described (special members,
>>> nested types, and member templates -
2013 Nov 22
2
[LLVMdev] bit code file incompatibility due to debug info changes
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:08 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at
2013 Oct 15
1
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 15,
2013 Nov 21
0
[LLVMdev] bit code file incompatibility due to debug info changes
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:57 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at
2013 Nov 21
0
[LLVMdev] bit code file incompatibility due to debug info changes
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:55 AM, David Blaikie
2013 Oct 15
0
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:10 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at
2013 Oct 16
0
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:38 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at
2013 Nov 22
2
[LLVMdev] bit code file incompatibility due to debug info changes
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:01 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at
2013 Nov 21
0
[LLVMdev] bit code file incompatibility due to debug info changes
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:26 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:57 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at
2013 Oct 09
0
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
David,
Thanks for reviewing!
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:36 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> Might be easier if these were on Phabricator, but here are some thoughts:
>
> 0001:
> This patch generally, while separated for legibility, is untested &
> difficult to discuss in isolation.
>
I agree, this patch adds the functionality but does not use it,
2013 Nov 21
3
[LLVMdev] bit code file incompatibility due to debug info changes
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at
2013 Oct 15
0
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at
2013 Oct 15
0
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info PATCH] for support of ref_addr and removal of DIE duplication
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:10 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at