similar to: Can DISubprogram be renamed?

David, Peter, Let me try it one more time, now with an example… Short of upstreaming a fake function clone pass, let me only illustrate the issue in raw debug output. Hopefully it should be sufficient. Try this: clang -Os -g -fno-strict-aliasing test_arg_del.ll -mllvm -debug -mllvm -print-after-all After DAE - Removing argument 1 (reg) from foo DAE - Removing argument 2

I will start from afar… When a dead function argument is removed, should we keep around the debug info for it? I have the following case: define internal fastcc void @foo(i8* %aa, i8* %reg, i8* %field, i32 %bb, ...) unnamed_addr #3 !dbg !28 { entry: call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %aa, i64 0, metabb !34, metabb !47), !dbg !57 call void @llvm.dbg.value(metabb i8* %reg, i64 0,

Hello, In regard to the review request https://reviews.llvm.org/D74470, I am trying to move five of the DIFlags to DISPFlag for the moment namely DIFlagExplicit, DIFlagPrototyped, DIFlagNoReturn, DIFlagThunk, DIFlagAllCallsDescribed. The llvm ir format for DISubprogram currently has backword compatibility where the isLocal, isDefinition, virtuality, isOptimized and SPFlags are mutually exclusive.

Yes, removing the support for isLocal, isDefinition fields completely from ll files, currently the LLParser still parses it. I want to remove it and update the all the ll files which still uses it. Also the metadata read will support old format, no changes in that. so if ll file has isLocal and isDefinition it will result in parser error. But the bitcode read will work as usual. - Chirag.

I saw https://reviews.llvm.org/rGe17f52d623cc146b7d9bf5a2e02965043508b4c4#949392 "Add a verifier check that rejects non-distinct DISubprogram function" (which has currently be reverted) today which made me wonder why a DISubprogram needs to be distinct? David told me the following and encouraged me to ask in the upstream: > May be historical at this point, I'm not quite sure. (I

> Could you please describe what is the benefit of that? Currently there are two ways to provide DISPFlagDefinition, via bool and SPFlag, I would like to make it only via SPFlags, it will be NFC and it will make the changes in parser simpler for moving five flags from from DIFlags to DISPFlags. Currently parser checks the presence of SPFlags to see if the definition is present in bool or spflag

Hi, I'd like to get the Function* that is described by a DISubprogram. I found this method getFunction() in the class. However, when I use it in my code, the function always returns 0. I tried to dig into it and saw that a mysterious number 16 is used in getFunctionField(16). I'm wondering if my failure of the function was caused by my incorrect use, e.g., without fulfilling

Thank you. What I need to do to address this? Open an issue on bugs.llvm.org? I'm not sure what the fix needs to be in the cloner. On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > There have in the past been bugs in the cloner involving duplicate > DICompileUnits (see e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/D29240), this one may > need a similar fix.

I have a Tripp Lite UPS and I have a configuration switch on one load and the PC plugged into the other load of the UPS is there any way to control the outlets of the UPS using NUT to allow the load the Switch is one to turn on before the PC load? I keep playing around with cloner drivers but they don't seem to be registering in the UPS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 4:08 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > First — thanks for fixing the test for me! I'm a bit curious about the test - any idea how it came to be, if it's invalid? Did we produce such bitcode in the past and don't anymore - what's the rule about backwards compatibility here, then? It seems like any time we regenerate a bitcode

Hello: I've been using EXT3 for awhile with Slackware Linux. I setup a master drive and I've been cloning it to identical hard drives using a hardware cloning device. My new batch of hard drives are a different size, so I can't use the hardware cloner. Is there any way to move the drive to a new, larger drive short of re-installing everything from scratch to make a new master?

All, I'm seeing duplication of DICompileUnits in a pass that worked in 3.8. I assume I'm doing something wrong. Would someone be willing to point me in the right direction? The below minimized pass reproduces my issue in 4.0 with the following error: DICompileUnit not listed in llvm.dbg.cu !1707 = distinct !DICompileUnit(language: DW_LANG_C_plus_plus, file: !1, producer: "clang

My question is this: If you have an ongoing blockcopy (drive-mirror) of a running transient VM, and the VM kernel panics, can you restart the VM without interrupting the ongoing blockcopy? A virsh reboot won't work since if the VM is kernel panicked, its not going to respond to ACPI requests.

Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com > <mailto:wendling at apple.com>> wrote: > > On Jan 24, 2012, at 1:35 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Bill Wendling > <wendling at apple.com <mailto:wendling at apple.com>> wrote: > > Hello, >

On Jan 24, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Yeah, I can't think of any use for something that would pull out NamedMDNodes for no reason. That said, if you want this to work, please audit the module cloner at the very least (it should copy the NamedMDNodes). > > But what would you do with llvm-extract? llvm-extract already copies over named metadata. > Should it keep a

What patch files are necessary to build rsync-3.0.9 for OS X 10.6.8 (Darwin 10.8.0)? Mr. Bombich maintains an excellent page about this, but it's a bit out of date, methinks, and his instructions point to patch files that return some interesting errors. My rsync-3.0.9 is working just fine, btw, with the fileflags and crtimes and hfs-compression patches applied; I just wondered if the others

I'm looking at cases of disagreement between assertions in the backend and what the Verifier checks for (for http://reviews.llvm.org/D16083). One of these seems to be the question of whether a DISuprogram may exist without a DICompileUnit. Currently the Verifier doesn't care, but there are a few assertions to this extent in the backend. Possible options are: 1) A DISubprogram may exist

> On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:54 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Branching off from a discussion of improvements to DIGlobalVariable representations that Adrian's working on - got me thinking about related changes that have already been made to DISubprogram. > > To reduce duplicate debug info when things like linkonce_odr functions were

A few disjoint thoughts; sorry they're so delayed (I skimmed the responses below, and I think these are still relevant/not covered elsewhere). Firstly, why *should* DISubprogram definitions be distinct? There were two reasons this was valuable (this was from before there was a cu: link). - It helped to fix long-standing bugs in the IRLinker, where uniqued-DISubprograms in different compile

Branching off from a discussion of improvements to DIGlobalVariable representations that Adrian's working on - got me thinking about related changes that have already been made to DISubprogram. To reduce duplicate debug info when things like linkonce_odr functions were deduplicated in LTO linking, the relationship between a CU and DISubprogram was inverted (instead of a CU maintaining a list