similar to: Debug info scope of explicit casting type does not seem correct

Hi David, OK, I got that DIE in Compile Unit scope may point to a DIE in subprogram scope. But how about that we are emitting a subprogram entry that has no attributes? 0x0000002b: DW_TAG_subprogram [3] * 0x0000002c: DW_TAG_typedef [4] DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (cu + 0x0040 => {0x00000040}) DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] (

That happens because we create the subprogram below as a context to the “DW_TAG_typedef” that was created as a type to “DW_TAG_pointer_type” that was added to the retained type list because of the explicit cast to (T*). This is the code that creates DW_TAG_subprogram: DIE *DwarfUnit::getOrCreateSubprogramDIE(const DISubprogram *SP, bool Minimal) { ... // DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine may refer

Sorry, this is the attachment. 2014-02-19 15:08 GMT+08:00 杨勇勇 <triple.yang at gmail.com>: > Thank you. > > Here is an example and the attchment contains extra files including object > file and executable file. > I want to print for example the value of "a", but lldb command "frame > variable a" displays "0" and so does "b", and

All of this information is contained in the DWARF debug info that you must generate. Are you generating DWARF? If not, you will need to. If so, please attach an example program that contains DWARF and specify which function you are having trouble getting variable information for. Greg Clayton On Feb 18, 2014, at 12:44 AM, 杨勇勇 <triple.yang at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, all > > I

Hi, all I ported llvm backend and lldb recently. Both tools can basically work. lldb is able to debug programs in asm style and frame unwinding is OK. But "frame variable XX" does not work because lldb is not able to determine the address of XX from debug info. Can someone give any clue? Thanks in advance. -- 杨勇勇 (Yang Yong-Yong) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Aboud, Amjad via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I verified that GDB 7.10 does support “DW_AT_abstract_origin” attribute on > “DW_TAG_lexical_block”. > I take it you mean that it does the right thing, finding the direct children of the abstract block when stepping into the inlined subroutine, etc? & this was a

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Tim > Northover via llvm-dev > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 3:07 AM > To: Nat! > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] A question to the DWARF experts on symbol > indirection > > Hi Nat!, > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 01:21, Nat! via

Hi, I would like to implement a fix to how LLVM handles/creates debug info for entities declared inside a basic block. Below you will find 5 parts: 1. Motivation for this fix. 2. Background explaining the cases that need to be fixed. 3. An example for each case. 4. Proposal on how to represent each case in dwarf. 5. Secondary (workaround) proposal which might be

Hi, I am trying to execute a simple hello world program compiled like so: path/to/compiled/clang -o test --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -march=armv8.5-a -fsanitize=hwaddress --sysroot=/usr/aarch64-linux-gnu/ -L/usr/lib/gcc/aarch64-linux-gnu/10.1.0/ -g test.c However, when I look at the disassembly, there is an unknown instruction listed at 0x2d51c: 000000000002d4c0 main: 2d4c0: ff c3 00 d1

> Right - I was wondering if CGDebugInfo already implemented PPCallbacks or was otherwise being notified of PPCallback related things, possibly through a layer or two of indirection. I checked the approach of skipping representing macros in AST, and communicate them directly from Parser to CGDebugInfo. However, I could not find a way to initialize this communication. The only interface

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Aboud, Amjad <amjad.aboud at intel.com> wrote: > I found a way to skip representing macros in AST and create them directly > in CGDebugInfo through PPCallbacks during preprocessing. > > To do that, I needed to extend ASTConsumer interface with this extra > method: > > > > /// If the consumer is interested in notifications from

> Not necessarily, if we kept the macros in order in the list of macros attached to the CU, which I imagine we would. OK, now I understand what you are aiming for. I really do not favor one on the other. But, can you explain what is the advantage of the parent approach over the children approach? If any, the children approach seems to be the one reduces the LLVM IR size, is not it? Regards,

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 6:16 AM, <Peter_Marshall at sn.scee.net> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Sorry for the delay, I've been out of the office. > > I think this example shows that name matching does not always work: > > template<typename T> class A { > public: > A(T val); > private: > T x; > }; > > struct B { > typedef

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:21 AM, David Blaikie via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Aboud, Amjad <amjad.aboud at intel.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I found a way to skip representing macros in AST and create them

> Do we really need to touch the AST? Or would it be reasonable to wire up the CGDebugInfo directly to the PPCallbacks, if it isn't already? (perhaps it is already wired up for other reasons?) This sound as a good idea, I will check that approach. PPCallbacks is only an interface, has nothing connected to it, but we will create a new class, which implement PPCallbacks, for macros. So we can

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Robinson, Paul < Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: > That doesn't seem to be the DWARF I'm seeing from Clang (& it'd be > surprising if we used the typedef (or otherwise non-canonical) name in the > class name): > > > > Finally getting back to this….. Ha. We don't unwrap the typedefs ("name > as

Below is attached a full IR module that can reproduce this issue, but the part to notice is this: %Foo96Bits = type <{ i24, i24, i24, i24 }> define internal fastcc i16 @main.0.1() unnamed_addr #2 !dbg !113 { Entry: %value = alloca %Foo96Bits, align 1 %b = alloca i24, align 4 %0 = bitcast %Foo96Bits* %value to i8*, !dbg !129 call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64(i8* %0, i8* bitcast

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Robinson, Paul < Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: > Actually no, we prefer to have the original typedef names in the > instantiation name, for source fidelity. > Then perhaps you should keep this change in your tree too - since that's where the need is? > "Name as it is in the source" or something reasonably close.

I'd like to jump in. I do not work on a preprocessor based language, but have the same code expansion problem to encode. Right now, we hack around the problem by appending some prefix after the file name and pretend it is a different file, which is not great. I understand you want to represent expansion by DIFileMacro ? I'm not how this is supposed to be used and it is not in the example.

Hi Mehdi, I understand the reasoning for supporting this proposal independently from CodeView support. However, I do not think that it is needed for supporting CodeView. When I say that my suggestion is more clean, I was pointing to CodeView support, assuming the changes in LLVM IR/Clang FE indicated in this proposal. Also, it is not that clear from the proposal what will be shared (generic)