similar to: Function Signature

Hi I'm using llvm-5. Browsing the source of llvm-dwarfdump and trying it on some shared libraries, I see I can print the debug info (assuming it exists). For some function, I'm wondering if there's a short cut to prettyprinting the signature of a function in the library? I think, looking at the output, that enough information exists but it seems to involve looking at the subprogram

Hi All, Was looking into a simple program - class Simple { public: void fun() {} }; int main() { Simple s; s.fun(); return 0; } When compiled using clang++ for ARM- Expected result when we run - print Simple::fun in GDB is void fun(Simple* const this) as this should be a const pointer but in case of arm compiled binary we get void fun(Simple* this). Works fine when compiled using

> -----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 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

Hi Karthik, > Expected result when we run - > > print Simple::fun in GDB is > void fun(Simple* const this) > > as this should be a const pointer but in case of arm compiled binary we get > void fun(Simple* this). I believe the actual type is coming from CXXMethodDecl::getThisType, which quotes the standard as saying: // C++ 9.3.2p1: The type of this in a member function

Hi, I am wondering if this behavior of creating debug info is correct. A type in compile unit entry is pointing to a type under subprogram entry?! This is the root cause of https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27579 0x0000000b: DW_TAG_compile_unit [1] * 0x00000026: DW_TAG_pointer_type [2] DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (cu + 0x002c => {0x0000002c})

Hi all, We have profiled [1] the memory usage in LLVM when LTO'ing Chromium, and we've found that one of the top consumers of memory is the DWARF emitter in lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/Dwarf*. I've been reading the DWARF emitter code and I have a few ideas in mind for how to reduce its memory consumption. One idea I've had is to restructure the emitter so that (for the most part) it

Hi all, Need your help. I added some debug information to my code according to Kaleidoscope-9 sample and got stuck with a GDB error: (gdb) info functions > invalid dwarf2 offset 1849950870 > My module is a DLL built with llc+ld toolchain. Target triple: 'i686-w64-mingw32'. Looking this offset (1849950870 == 0x6e440296) in dwarfdump output of the dll gave the following:

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

Hi I'm using llvm-5. Browsing the source of llvm-dwarfdump and trying it on some shared libraries, I see I can print the debug info (assuming it exists). For some function, I'm wondering if there's a short cut to prettyprinting the signature of a function in the library? I think, looking at the output, that enough information exists but it seems to involve looking at the subprogram

>From my understanding, the LLVM classes are just representing the DWARF information without doing any extra work, so I am afraid that you will have to explicitly chase through all the DWARF information yourself. On 4/5/2018 3:22 PM, Bill O'Hara via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi > > I'm using llvm-5. Browsing the source of llvm-dwarfdump and trying it on > some shared libraries, I

> On Apr 1, 2020, at 2:56 AM, Sourabh Singh Tomar <sourav0311 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Do you mean documenting the desired frontend behavior, or adding some verifier in > LLVM? A warning for the latter is that SROA may currently emit IR that contains a > mix of declares and values for different fragments of an aggregate variable, so I > assume that is something that

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:27 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 14, 2019, at 1:21 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hey folks, > > > > Would you all mind having a bit of a design discussion around the > feature both at the DWARF level and the LLVM implementation? It seems like > what's

Hi My goal is that given a binary and the corresponding input. I want to know what IR level basic blocks are covered. I need the detail information, which is the set of all the covered BBs rather than just a number. I want to know whether there are some tools that can support this requirements. If not, I think maybe instrumentation can helps. However, I do not know too much about this. Any

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

*From:* flang-dev <flang-dev-bounces at lists.flang-compiler.org> *On Behalf Of *Eric Schweitz (PGI) *Sent:* Thursday, November 01, 2018 1:02 PM *To:* flang-dev at lists.flang-compiler.org *Subject:* [Flang-dev] RFC: Adding debug information to LLVM to support Fortran In order to support debugging in the Flang project, work has been done to extend LLVM debug information for the Fortran

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

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 I know that LLVM provide some debug API for us to know the source code information. For example, every IR instruction's source line number and column number. However, are there any method to get a mapping from IR instruction to binary address directly. I don't want to use dwarf line mapping table as a bridge. I think the binary is generated by clang and llvm. I think there definitely