similar to: [LLVMdev] About the "debugger target"

Comments on the patch raise the following questions, probably better discussed here. First: Should LLVM default to "no tuning" rather than a target-specific default? There are two natural follow-up questions: What would "no tuning" actually mean? Where would the target-specific defaulting occur? I originally came down against the "no tuning" option, in favor of the

In some cases we do want to make the decision based on the target. For Hexagon, we don't support GDB anymore, only LLDB, so we always want LLDB tuning. The clang driver should have a way to specify that. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -----Original Message----- From:

Another example would be .debug_pubnames and .debug_pubtypes sections. Currently these default to omitted for Darwin and PS4, but included everywhere else. My initial patch for "tuning" changes the PS4 platform criterion to the SCE debugger predicate; quite likely the "not Darwin" criterion ought to be "not LLDB" or in other words "on for GDB only."

I don’t think there was a driver patch so far, was there? -- adrian > On May 6, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > Does the patch do all of this? > > -eric > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:18 PM Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com <mailto:Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com>> wrote: > I just skimmed

This is basically a reboot of the previous thread titled About the "debugger target" except that "target" was really too strong a term for what I had intended to use this feature for. "Debugger tuning" is more like it. You don't need to have read the previous thread, I'll recap here. Fundamentally, Clang/LLVM uses DWARF as the specification for the

> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org] > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 3:15 PM > To: Robinson, Paul > Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu Developers (cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu); LLVM Developers > Mailing List (llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu); lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] What does "debugger tuning" mean? > > On Fri, May

> On May 5, 2015, at 8:12 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com <mailto:aprantl at apple.com>> wrote: > > > On May 1, 2015, at 2:18 PM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com <mailto:gclayton at apple.com>> wrote: > > > > > >> On May 1,

> On May 1, 2015, at 2:18 PM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On May 1, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: >> >>> A few more things that vote for debugger tuning: >>> >>> - LLDB doesn't like to have DWARF that has a class A that inherits from >>> class B, but

I just skimmed through the thread again, and I *think* all the main questions have been answered… It feels like the consensus is "reluctant agreement," with the specific design points being: - a "debugger tuning" option would have some sort of target-based default - the "debugger tuning" option would unpack into defaults for individual feature flags -

> A few more things that vote for debugger tuning: > > - LLDB doesn't like to have DWARF that has a class A that inherits from > class B, but only a forward declaration of class B is provided. Hmm do we emit that kind of thing today? In a naïve test, I'm seeing the full description of class B. > - LLDB wants the .apple_XXX accelerator tables, GDB wants >

This is admittedly a longshot, but Can you check whether you experience unusually long run times with LLDB? If there’s something strange about tge binaries we generate, maybe lldb will exhibit some strangeness too and we can more easily profile it. On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 2:48 PM Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I don't know about the issues with

Hello all, I am implementing support for .debug_names section (which is introduced in DWARFv5 standard as replacement for .debug_pubnames and .debug_pubtypes). The question is: should usage of DWARF version 5 force generation of .debug_names instead of .debug_pubnames or we can make it just default behavior and provide user with the interface (cmd switch) to use other DWARFv5 features but

David Jones via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > GDB likes to load all symbols from shared libraries up front. And on > x86_64 your main executable is really just another shared library. Yes, but does gdb reload everything on each execution? Every time I execute "run" I see the same slow behavior. Loading the symbols for small tools like llvm-rc takes

Yep, as others have mentioned - using a linker-generated gdb-index is super helpful (10s for my machine to start debugging an unoptimized clang, set a breakpoint at llvm::StringRef::StringRef and run until that breakpoint is hit, as opposed to 1m26s without an index) That's also with/without split DWARF too, but I suspect most of the benefit is in the index there. Split DWARF might save you

Adrian: any thoughts? Has LLDB been fixed to support this yet? On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 6:33 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > My inclination would be to use "disable if 32-bit and –ggnu-pubnames" as > the default, > Unfortunately Nico points out that Chrome doesn't currently use -ggnu-pubnames :/ So to continue to work "out of the box"

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:50 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > Can gdb handle these? i.e. is it just gold that has the problem? > Yep, it's just gold when it's building the gdb-index (an accelerator table for GDB) > Conditioning on debugger tuning when it's not the debugger that has the > problem… icky. > It does. Though to a lesser

Hello everyone, Below are some buildbot numbers for the last week of 6/05/2016 - 6/11/2016. Thanks Galina buildername | was_red -----------------------------------------------------------+----------- sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap | 134:12:25 perf-x86_64-penryn-O3-polly-parallel-fast | 46:29:26

Hello everyone, Below are some buildbot numbers for the week of 7/10/2016 - 7/16/2016. Please see the same data in attached csv files: The longest time each builder was red during the week; "Status change ratio" by active builder (percent of builds that changed the builder status from greed to red or from red to green); Count of commits by project; Number of completed builds, failed

Hello everyone, Below are some buildbot numbers for the last week of 9/25/2016 - 10/1/2016. Please see the same data in attached csv files: The longest time each builder was red during the last week; "Status change ratio" by active builder (percent of builds that changed the builder status from greed to red or from red to green); Count of commits by project; Number of completed

Context: In r309526 (with a followup fix in r309529) I implemented the use of DWARF's debug_ranges base address specifier entries to reduce the number of object file relocations needed for debug_ranges*. * in a particular binary internally, an optimized build had a 70% reduction in debug_ranges.reloc, a 16% decrease in total object size (with compressed debug info and fission) Nico noted