similar to: Basic Coverage

There should be a line-table entry for the end of the function, which appears to be missing from the dump you provided. llvm-dwarfdump should report this address with 'end_sequence' in the Flags. Are you using a different dumper? I am not sure but my guess would be that inline data is not represented in the line table. The line table's primary purpose is to inform the debugger

I'm not familiar with the target instruction set, but if "MOV PC, R0" is not a return instruction, I'm guessing that the sequence starting at A39C is a dispatch through a jump table. The jump table would be considered part of the instruction stream and included in the scope of the line table. This is not a case where you would see end_sequence; my mistake. The line table does

Hi paulr Thanks for your reply. Though DWARF info give me the code address ranges, there might be inline data. If so, how to handle this case? As for the dwarf line table. Sometimes, the source line might be zero. Do you know why? If all instructions should be describe in the line table, I think analyzing Dwarf line table is enough to get all the instructions addresses. Do you agree? I would

sorry, ignore my earlier email. I followed this: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42881901/how-to-compile-some-modules-in-llvm-with-debug-mode-others-with-release-mode and got the debug build completed. On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 10:02 AM Peter Teoh <htmldeveloper at gmail.com> wrote: > will this help? > > >

bio_add_page() requires non-NULL bio ptr for dereferencing. Signed-off-by: Peter Teoh <htmldeveloper@gmail.com> --- extent_io.c.orig1 2008-03-16 12:43:59.000000000 +0800 +++ extent_io.c 2008-03-16 12:45:03.000000000 +0800 @@ -1729,6 +1729,7 @@ static int submit_extent_page(int rw, st if (bio_ret && *bio_ret) { bio = *bio_ret; + BUG_ON(!bio);

Hi Alex Thanks for your email. But it seems not work. I removed the -fsanitize=address flag. The global buffer overflow message doesn't show. However, no *.sancov file is created after I run perlbench. Thus, I could not get the BB coverage. Do you have any ideas? Many Thanks Regards Muhui Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com> 于2018年9月5日周三 下午7:14写道： > Hi Muhui, > > If

I was playing around with btrfs, and did a mkfs.btrfs on one of my partition. Mistakes, it was my data partition (ext3 based). I have not yet mounted the device, but the mkfs.btrfs continued to completion. Is it possible to salvage my ext3 filesystem? Anyway to reverse the effect of mkfs.btrfs? Thank you for your help/answer. -- Regards, Peter Teoh

First the following errors are logged in dmesg: [ 31.891848] mtrr: base(0xc0000000) is not aligned on a size(0xff00000) boundary [ 32.343580] Xorg:3090 conflicting memory types c0000000-cff00000 uncached<->uncached-minus [ 32.343585] reserve_memtype failed 0xc0000000-0xcff00000, track uncached, req write-back [ 32.344431] Xorg:3090 conflicting memory types fd000000-fe000000

Hi Paul Thanks for your comments. Suppose I can generate the control flow graph via LLVM Pass or the default option like '-dot-cfg' with opt. However, the control flow graph is based on llvm IR level. I would like to have a control flow graph based on binary level. Thus, I want to map the IR to binary address. As far as I know, we used to use the debug information to map the IR to source

In the definition of register classes, have you provided any value types for each class? -Krzysztof On 1/9/2019 7:19 PM, m m via llvm-dev wrote: > The file that is causing this assertion contains only 3 include statements > > |//===-- ABCOther.td - Describe the ABC Target Machine ----*- tablegen > -*-===// // // >

Hi Dave Sorry, I meant the hardware you're using to compile LLVM - you mentioned it took you a long time to rebuild it so it would be hard for you to write/experiment on tests. ============================= Compiling LLVM doesn't take me too much time(less than 2 hours). The hardware is good enough and I am using interl E5 CPU. What I mean is that it took me a long time to analysis the

Hi Muhui, I tried to grep the "DW_TAG_subprogram" from the debug_info . However, I noticed that the number I found is still less than the whole functions I found with LLVM IR. Do you have any experiences? Many Thanks The only explanation that comes to mind, is that the functions are not in the final binary object file. However, previously you said you believed they were present. If

Hi Actually, No particular reason. I just think this might be a solution, then I use think kind of method. Querying the symbol table would be a good choice, but I prefer to use LLVM and dwarf information. I am sorry that I am not familiar with debug_info. But thanks to your suggestions. I would like to try to solve it with debug_info. It seems work according to your comments By the way, I am

Hi If so, is it able to disable this check. All I need is just to get the BB coverage information Regards Muhui Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com>于2018年9月5日 周三下午6:57写道： > This is a known problem in SPECCPU2006, see > https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerFoundBugs > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 7:36 AM Muhui Jiang via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at

Hi I am using the LLVM function pass to help me to do code analysis. I use -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180529/a617b2c6/attachment.html>

Hi Teresa Thanks for your very quick and clear explanation. I have one more question. The emit-llvm option will give you the IR for a single source file when you compile it with -c. All of those files when combined give the IR in the preopt.bc temp file. =========== So if I use "clang -emit-llvm -c" to generate the .ll file. It should be the same as the one I generated by using

Hi Peter I guess this is the document written by you https://fosdem.org/2018/schedule/event/crosscompile/attachments/slides/2107/export/events/attachments/crosscompile/slides/2107/How_to_cross_compile_with_LLVM_based_tools.pdf I follow it to try to use the clang to do cross compilation. Actually, my target binaries is SPECCPU2006 and autotools based binaries. However, I failed on the first

Hi David Thank you very much for your suggestions. ScopeLine works well. It could represent the start of a function. Do you know whether I can get the start column of this function? Many Thanks Regards Muhui 2018-05-30 3:25 GMT+08:00 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>: > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:25 AM Muhui Jiang via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

Hi Krzysztof Thank you very much for your quick and clear reply. I know that MIR may not match hardware instructions directly. However, I think the semantics should be similar. For example, the first instruction is a store-multiple instruction in ARM. I think the first four MIR I shown should have the similar semantics with the first three hardware instructions. I still cannot see the

Hi, I'm trying to do a Debug build for the 1st time and I keep getting this assertion: llvm-tblgen: CodeGenDAGPatterns.cpp:64: llvm::EEVT::TypeSet::TypeSet(llvm::ArrayRef<llvm::MVT::SimpleValueType>): Assertion `!VTList.empty() && "empty list?"' failed. I do not know what list this assertion is referring to. Does anyone know? I always did Release builds before