similar to: [LLVMdev] Reusing LLVM Mips instruction info in lldb

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 1:03:43 PM Keno Fischer < > kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> in http://reviews.llvm.org/D7696 bhushan added a mips64 UnwindAssembly >> plugin (a plugin that looks at assembly code to find out how to unwind

On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 1:40:29 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 1:03:43 PM Keno Fischer < >> kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: >> >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> in

Apparently some lld targets also need instruction encoding. It would be nice to figure out one interface that can be used by both lld and lldb. On 24 February 2015 at 16:56, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 1:40:29 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Eric Christopher

We don't currently apply any relocations (that I know of) for debug info in LLDB. > On Jun 2, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: > > I think I'm getting closer. The debug_info section is being relocated correctly (I think): > > 0x00000000: Compile Unit: length = 0x00000045 version = 0x0003 abbr_offset = 0x00000000 addr_size =

I didn't get to work on this more last week, but I'll look at incorporating that suggestion. The other question of course is how to do this in LLDB. Right, now what I'm doing is going through and adjusting the load address of every leaf in the section tree. That basically works and gets me backtraces with the correct function names and the ability to set breakpoints at functions in

Yes, it would be great to get that fixed. On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Keno Fischer > <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: > > Looks like when you materialize the stores, you should check the size of > the > > the store and emit an appropriate amount of stores to the

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

Looks like when you materialize the stores, you should check the size of the the store and emit an appropriate amount of stores to the origin shadow (or just a memset intrinsic?). On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu>wrote: > The @entry stuff is just a gdb artifact. I've been tracking this back a > little further, and it seems there's

How is ccall() implemented? If it manually sets up a stack frame, then it also needs to store argument shadow values in paramtls. I don't think there is an overflow, unless you have a _lot_ of arguments in a function call. On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: > Also, I was looking at the instrumented LLVM code and I noticed that the

The code for ccall looks right. Sounds like you have a very small range of instructions where an uninitialized value appear. You could try debugging at asm level. Shadow for b should be passed at offset 0 in __msan_param_tls. MSan could propagate shadow through arithmetic and even some logic operations (like select). It could be that b is clean on function entry, but then something uninitialized

Indeed, removing that flag works fine, the only question is why this is added in tools/llvm-shlib/Makefile in the first place then and what to do about it: ifeq ($(HOST_OS), $(filter $(HOST_OS), Linux GNU GNU/kFreeBSD)) # Don't allow unresolved symbols. LLVMLibsOptions += -Wl,--no-undefined endif On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Alexander Potapenko <glider at

I have verified that both TLS implementations indeed find the same area of memory. Anything else I could look for? On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu>wrote: > Yes, both JIT code and the native runtime are instrumented. I am under the > impressions that the the C library should guarantee that from the way the > relocations are

Ok, I had forgotten about sNaNs. Doesn't the same caveat apply to 0-sNaN then though or does that not signal? Does that mean we need a separate way to handle negate in the IR? Funnily enough, historically I believe we were using the multiplication by -1.0 because it was a more reliable negation that 0-x (from 3.0 until 3.3 at least). Is there a good reason why multiplication by NaN should kill

Sorry, I didn't have a small IR example and I was sure I was just doing something stupid. Thanks for the help, I'll try it out and report back. Maybe it would be good to add an assertion or something that tells people what's wrong in this case, since the generated DWARF seems to be invalid? On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:53 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Use

Hello everybody, after moving from OS X to Linux build llvm with asan enabled (I also updated to trunk, but not sure if that's related). However, it's totally possible that I missed a step that I took back when I set this up for me, so I might be doing something very stupid. Anyway, I'm configuring LLVM with ../configure --prefix=/home/kfischer/julia/usr --build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

Actually it only link the shlib fine. Linking any executable against it fails: llvm[2]: Linking Release+Asserts executable llvm-lto (without symbols) /home/kfischer/julia/deps/llvm-svn/build_Release+Asserts/Release+Asserts/bin/clang++ -fsanitize=address -O3 -Wl,-R -Wl,'$ORIGIN/../lib' -L/home/kfischer/julia/deps/llvm-svn/build_Release+Asserts+Sanitize/Release+Asserts/lib

Ok. That you for clarifying the point for me. I was primed for a regression because this behavior changed over llvm versions and was causing my tests to fail ;). I'm now doing bitcasting to int, xoring with the signbit and bitcasting back. On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > Subtraction is also not a correct implementation of negation, for

Thank you for the explanation. Does that mean r_symbolnum is basically redundant in that case? Also, let me ask you how to handle the following use case which is somewhat related. Currently in MCJIT for MachO we are relocating all the debug sections. Eventually (as ELF does), it would be good to avoid this. However, this means that the debugger would have to handle relocations (as lldb currently

Hi Dale, I don't think that Keno's rewrite is applicable for a bug fix release. We have, in the last year, moved to having some dot releases for our older releases, but these are definitely bug fix only and low risk as we don't want to break anything new. The release documentation is located here: http://llvm.org/docs/HowToReleaseLLVM.html for future reference. There's no

Thanks! I'll try that. In order to avoid starting a new thread, let me ask you the next question. One of the shared libraries I load calls strtol and msan fails to intercept it. Why would this be? The library seems to be otherwise implemented. One of the potential culprits I saw is that strtol is marked as strong in libc. Is there any workaround? Keno On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Evgeniy