similar to: [llvm] r250383 - Speculatively unbreak Windows build

Ok just tried on Win 7 and the same problem occurs. I am building with : cmake -G "Ninja" -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DLLVM_USE_CRT_RELEASE=MT -DLLVM_ENABLE_TIMESTAMPS=ON -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON -DLLVM_INSTALL_TOOLCHAIN_ONLY=ON -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="ARM;X86" -DPYTHON_EXECUTABLE=$python_exe -DLLVM_BUILD_TESTS=ON -DLLVM_LIT_TOOLS_DIR=C:/cygwin64/bin fwiw compiler-rt is

FWIW, this test is passing for me on Windows 7 with Visual Studio 2015 (debug build). 59> Running all regression tests 59> -- Testing: 23734 tests, 32 threads -- 59> 59> Testing Time: 634.19s 59> Expected Passes : 22821 59> Expected Failures : 160 59> Unsupported Tests : 753 59> lit.py: lit.cfg:195: note: using clang:

Hi, This might be interesting since it seems to be the only LLVM test failing with VS 2015: FAIL: LLVM :: DebugInfo/PDB/pdbdump-symbol-format.test (7377 of 14212) ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: DebugInfo/PDB/pdbdump-symbol-format.test' FAILED ******************** Script: -- llvm-pdbdump -symbols C:\cygwin64\home\ismail\src\llvm\test\DebugInfo\PDB/Inputs/symbolformat.pdb |

I submitted this yesterday in r274171. I think this allows for a more intuitive way to structure the options of command line tools. It's optional and if you do nothing llvm::cl will work as it always has for you. Probably self explanatory, but here's some output of --help from llvm-pdbdump, which was updated to use subcommands in r274247, in case anyone wants to see what this looks

Hi Mike, > I'll check into that again. I ran across llvm-pdbdump earlier but couldn't get it to build on a vanilla 3.8 install (CMake is convinced I don't have the DIA SDK and I haven't found a way to change its mind). I have experienced something similar with the DIA SDK. Most of the time, it is a path problem: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3035999

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > I wrote most of the pdb code in llvm so far. As Reid suggested, if you > look in DebugInfo/PDB/Raw there is a significant amount of code dealing > with msf files and raw pdb streams. If you build the llvm-pdbdump tool you > can run it with the "raw" subcommand to dump lots of low level

The new error message is: llvm-pdbdump: DIA Error: An unknown error has occurred. HRESULT: 0x800700C1: Calling NoRegCoCreate which is more or less what I expected. The specific HResult is kind of interesting, it maps to "msdia140.dll is not a valid Win32 application". I don't know if this means that it can't find the DLL, or that it did find the DLL and it's corrupt. Is

We can try to print a better error message here, but it looks like regardless someone will need physical access to the bot to determine what the problem is with DIA. On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:51 AM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > I filed https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30736 to get that fixed. > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:52 AM, Briltz, Denis <Denis.Briltz at

Hi, “clang-x64-ninja-win7” was switched to VS2015. It is red now due to a few PDB tests and one sanitizer test. Failing Tests (10): LLVM :: DebugInfo/PDB/DIA/pdbdump-flags.test LLVM :: DebugInfo/PDB/DIA/pdbdump-linenumbers.test LLVM :: DebugInfo/PDB/DIA/pdbdump-symbol-format.test LLVM :: tools/llvm-pdbdump/class-layout.test LLVM :: tools/llvm-pdbdump/enum-layout.test

Is making PDB files for corresponding IR supported in LLVM latest version? After some searching I see llvm-pdbdump, but I want to annotate the IR with debug information so that when I write bitcode it has pdb information. I've heard of CodeView, but it seems to be only for line information. I want variable values also. I would be ok to use DWARF if Visual Studio could understand it using

I came across a PDB that caused llvm-pdbdump to crash. I tracked it down to a missing overload for a data type in the variable printer. When I tried to provide an implementation, I discovered that there were some bugs in the existing overloads and it was easy to come up with combinations of types that weren't being dumped right. I created some test cases and tried to fix these problems but

What makes the reports not actionable on windows? On Tue., 22 Aug. 2017, 3:49 pm Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I think we should delete it. David implemented it a long time ago when he > was working on llvm-pdbdump, but he's moved on. Zach was never able to use > it effectively because he works on Windows, so the reports were not >

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Johan Wehrli <johan.wehrli at strong.codes> wrote: > > Most of the time, it is a path problem: > https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3035999 > > If you open the file cmake/config-ix.cmake you will find the place where > cmake check if the DIA_SDK is present (there is also a note saying that > sometime this is a Windows bug). > >

> On Jan 29, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > > I've been working on adding pdb reading support to llvm. This started as a tool for dumping info from a pdb (similar to llvm-dwarfdump), which has been checked in and currently has limited support for dumping pdb. > > There's still more to be done on the pdb dumping tool, but at this

>The pdb reading code relies *very heavily* on Windows APIs can you make shure not to have any windows api stuff in the pdb-reader interface so its easy to - if someone wants to - implement an windows-api independent version (support reading under linux etc.) because the pdb format needs to be analysed anyway for writing pdb information on compile/link (in the future) Am 29.01.2015 um 19:20

On Thu Jan 29 2015 at 10:22:17 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > I've been working on adding pdb reading support to llvm. This started as > a tool for dumping info from a pdb (similar to llvm-dwarfdump), which has > been checked in and currently has limited support for dumping pdb. > > There's still more to be done on the pdb dumping tool, but at

Hi all, I've written a patch <http://reviews.llvm.org/D21485> to support subcommands in llvm command line tools. This potentially has broad interest (either positive or negative), so I figured I'd give a heads up here instead of just on llvm-commits. The motivation for this is that we frequently have tools with incompatible sets of command line options. I ran into this on

See my earlier response to Adrian. But I'll rehash the point here, which is that basically in the short term, I think it makes the most sense to keep them separate. In the future, if / when we decide to provide a unified interface (e.g libDebugInfo as you suggest), there will be additional machinery required to wrap the two interfaces, so we could move the DIContext class at that time. Does

> On Jan 29, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > > See my earlier response to Adrian. But I'll rehash the point here, which is that basically in the short term, I think it makes the most sense to keep them separate. In the future, if / when we decide to provide a unified interface (e.g libDebugInfo as you suggest), there will be additional

Not sure I follow how this would work. "llvm" is an executable, and "opt" is a symlink to "llvm"? How does llvm then detect that it needs to use the opt set of commands? That said, in principle sure you could have "llvm opt <opt-specific command syntax>" or "llvm llc <llc options>". At some point you'd probably need to extend