similar to: DWARF: Should type units be referenced by signature or declaration?

Hi debug-info folks, I've recently been experimenting with the -debug-info-kind=constructor model for debug-info creation, which is leading to some significant reductions in .debug_info on our large C++ benchmarks, which is great! I see in PR46537 that there's a plan to eventually enable this by default -- is this something we can target for LLVM12, or are there outstanding issues? While

On 03.09.2020 01:36, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:26 PM Alexey <avl.lapshin at gmail.com > <mailto:avl.lapshin at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 02.09.2020 21:44, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 9:56 AM Alexey <avl.lapshin at gmail.com >> <mailto:avl.lapshin at gmail.com>>

Sorry, trying to catch up a bit late… It sounds like having more than one CU per .dwo is outside of the intention of the DWARF specification (though not explicitly forbidden), since there is an implied 1-1 relationship between skeleton CU and .dwo. There is an explicit 1-1 relationship between skeleton CU and split-full CU (not .dwo). This suggests to me that if you want a .dwo to have multiple

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

While I've already posted reviews for the initial patches for this (see http://reviews.llvm.org/D8506 and http://reviews.llvm.org/D8599), the grapevine suggests I should post a lengthier description of my intent for the "debugger target." The idea was prompted by a suggestion from Eric Christopher, and I'm running with it. Various bits of the DWARF we produce are conditional on

Hello all, I need to specify that a class should define a constant. I couldn''t find something such as "should define_const(''MY_CONST'')" in the RSpec documentation, even though there are similar matchers such as "should respond_to". I know I can write the matcher myself (that wouldn''t be so difficult) but is there a reason ? Thanks!

> On May 3, 2017, at 7:43 PM, Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On May 3, 2017, at 2:59 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:09 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com <mailto:aprantl at apple.com>> wrote:

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.

On 01.09.2020 20:07, David Blaikie wrote: > Fair enough - thanks for clarifying the differences! (I'd still lean a > bit towards this being dwz-esque, as you say "an extension of classic dwz" I doubt a little about "llvm-dwz" since it might confuse people who would expect exactly the same behavior. But if we think of it as "an extension of classic dwz" and

> On May 6, 2016, at 4:01 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On May 6, 2016, at 3:53 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On May 6, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On May 6, 2016, at 3:40 PM, Mehdi

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:09 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > > On May 3, 2017, at 2:00 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > So Dehao and I have been dealing with some of the nitty gritty details > of debug info with ThinLTO, specifically with Fission(Split DWARF). > > > > This applies to LTO as well, so I

So Dehao and I have been dealing with some of the nitty gritty details of debug info with ThinLTO, specifically with Fission(Split DWARF). This applies to LTO as well, so I won't single out ThinLTO here. 1) Multiple CUs in a .dwo file Clang/LLVM produces a CU for each original source file - these CUs are kept through IR linking (thin or full) and produced as distinct CUs in the resulting

On 02.09.2020 21:44, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 9:56 AM Alexey <avl.lapshin at gmail.com > <mailto:avl.lapshin at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 01.09.2020 20:07, David Blaikie wrote: >> Fair enough - thanks for clarifying the differences! (I'd still >> lean a bit towards this being dwz-esque, as you say "an

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

> -----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 Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Robinson, Paul < Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: > Maybe we are being too pedantic about the names. I'll have to go back and > look in detail at why we decided to do that. > > > > In any case, arguably 5.5.8 (Class Template Instantiations) 1 only applies > to definitions of a type, not declarations. ("Each formal

Much like the recent efforts to provide a port of dsymutil in the LLVM project, I'm looking at providing an implementation of the Fission/Split DWARF DWP tool ( https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebugFissionDWP ) in LLVM. While there's potentially some overlap between the two tools, I'm thinking of keeping them separate at least initially since much of the debug info doesn't need to be

On 26.08.2020 10:58, James Henderson wrote: > In principle, this sounds reasonable to me. I don't know enough about > dsymutil's interface to know whether it makes sense to try to make it > multi-format compatible or not. If it doesn't I'm perfectly happy for > a new tool to be added using the DWARFLinker library. > > Some more general thoughts: > 1)

> On May 4, 2017, at 4:53 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > Alrighty, a little fuzzy on how best to implement this - Adrian, you've probably got the most context here as to how to wrangle this. > > My first attempt was in IRMover.cpp, IRLinker::linkFunctionBody - after metadata is copied over, create a new subprogram derived from Dst.getSubprogram,

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > > So Dehao and I have been dealing with some of the nitty gritty details of > > debug info with ThinLTO, specifically with Fission(Split DWARF). > > > > This applies to LTO as