similar to: RFC: CodeView debug info emission in Clang/LLVM

I think it'd be reasonable to at least figure out a good way to do type references consistently across the two schemes, but I'm OK with the idea of having a blob of opaque type information for different debug info formats, created by frontends (& don't mind if the library for building that blob live in LLVM or Clang for now - the DWARF one at least would probably live in LLVM

It seems a little strange conceptually that object depends on BitcodeReader. Is it possible to break that dependency? On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:11 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:52 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:55 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >>

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:55 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:31 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm looking at fixing some layering violations in LLVM & came across a >> few in the CodeView handling, specifically: >> >> lib/MC/MCCodeView includes several llvm/DebugInfo/CodeView headers

Brief answer, but can go into detail later: If this is the right idea, lets do it for dwarf too & generalize the support to work for both. It's certainly something we've considered, to save all the complexity of representing essentially static data in an intermediate form. That said, given some of the stuff we have for lto, for example (deallocating/merging types etc) I'm not

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:52 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:55 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:31 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm looking at fixing some layering violations in LLVM & came across a >>> few in the

I also think that we should keep one representation of debug info in the LLVM IR. There would be a need to extend some of the debug info entries to support CodeView, but I think that most of the information generated today by Clang for Dwarf can be used for generating CodeView. I can think about two missing extensions that are needed to CodeView: 1. In Frontend: File Checksum, it is

The LLVMCodeView library is definitely independent of the rest of the design questions. As far as testing goes, what would be the conventional LLVM way of testing a library for file format manipulation? A test tool that converts some simple text form into a .obj containing CodeView sections, and comparing with a baseline .obj? Or would the test convert back from the .obj to some kind of text as

No, Object is supposed to be an abstraction over real object files and LLVM bitcode object files. Maybe we can break the CodeView -> Object dependency. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > It seems a little strange conceptually that object depends on > BitcodeReader. Is it possible to break that dependency? > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at

Definitely having someone who knows both formats well would be an advantage. Dave B might be in the best position to do this, so hopefully he can provide a couple more examples of areas where he has trouble expressing CV information entirely in the backend. Regardless of what everyone ends up deciding on with regards to the front-end / back-discussion, I want to suggest separating the work into

That’s a good question, by default when emitting the object file I choose COFF but it embeds dwarf and not codeview in the end.. there probably is a way to do it or at least it must be implemented if not yet.. Lets imagine I manage to do that.. when you say there is nothing to do, I still must have a PDBFileBuilder to copy the codeview data inside the EXE PDB right ? I cannot insert them easily in

(Yes you are right this is my fault) Considering the string table, it only seems to contains file relative informations in every pdb I am using, and it looks correct but I will check it. I looked at the pdb.cpp code about checksums and tables, I copied some stuff and got things wrong according to cvdump, then I simplified the process of copying the table and it worked (in cvdump it finds the file

Hello Zachary, Sorry for replying so lately but It's been a week I'm thinking an working hard on your "dll memory buffer" idea to see if it works and give you feedbacks ! And it works pretty well until now : I shared on the list what I did : - create a .ASM file full of "int 3" instructions (to ensure that if we execute over the boundaries we instantly break. -

Ok I understand more what you meant. In fact I don’t care about the pdb size, at least as a first step, so it won’t be a problem for me to have duplicated symbols. Concerning TypeIndices my plan if possible is not to generate a pdb for my jit and merge it, but instead directly extract debug info from a DwarfContext just after llvm::object::ObjectFile is emitted by the JIT engine and complete the

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Dave Bartolomeo via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Proposed Design > > How Debug Info is Generated > > The CodeView type records for a compilation unit will be generated by > the front-end

Hello, LLVM currently supports emission of CodeView's line table subsection. However, we'd like to increase the fidelity of this debug info with column information. I was wondering if anybody had any pointers as to how CodeView represents such information. Thanks! -- David Majnemer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I was just trying to build lldb-6.0 from source (and had previously successfully build llvm-6.0, clang-6.0, and lld-6.0 from source), but received a compile error while using both just cmake and cmake+ninja Does this look familiar to anyone? In file included from llvm/lldb-6.0.0.src/source/API/SystemInitializerFull.cpp:89: In file included from

I'm still trying to figure this out. On one of my machines it went away after a clean install even though my configuration is exactly the same. I'll let you know once I know more. On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:28 PM Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > + Jonas who hit the same bug recently. > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Eric Gorr via llvm-dev >

+ Jonas who hit the same bug recently. On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Eric Gorr via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I was just trying to build lldb-6.0 from source (and had previously > successfully build llvm-6.0, clang-6.0, and lld-6.0 from source), but > received a compile error while using both just cmake and cmake+ninja > > Does this look familiar to

Sounds like we have an issue in the CodeView headers related to a duplicate symbol. While this doesn't entirely surprise me after seeing the error, I'm also not sure why this problem is only just happening now. Ultimately what's happening is we have this enumeration: enum class RegisterId : uint16_t { ... CR3, ... }; But your termios.h file also has a #define for CR3. I guess one

Looks like maybe the CodeView -> Object dependency is out of date/old/not needed any more anyway... (don't see any Object headers included from the CodeView headers or implementation, etc). Will see if going that way internally is viable & loop back if it stumbles across something. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:27 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > No, Object is