similar to: DIFile filenames containing directories

Yeah, I Think this is intentional to provide paths relative to some root - at least Chromium builds use -fdebug-compilation-dir to avoid baking in the random directory on various distributed build machines, but the "filename" is still qualified relative to that directory so that the debugger can lookup the relative paths itself. On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:02 AM <paul.robinson at

Can't say I know much about -fdebug-prefix-map, but... On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 1:07 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback! Closely-related follow-up question: Is *this* a > bug? > > llvm/tools/clang/test/CodeGen/debug-prefix-map.c:33:27: > // CHECK-COMPILATION-DIR: !DIFile(filename: > "/var/empty{{[/\\]}}Inputs/stdio.h",

Try using $PWD/test.cpp on the clang command line. I am seeing the duplicate DIFile entries, but not yet able to reproduce a .debug_line section with multiple directory entries. --paulr From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Tomar, Sourabh Singh via llvm-dev Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:07 PM To: Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com>; cfe-dev at

I just wrote an IR Verifier check that catches the following situation: ; RUN: not llvm-as %s -disable-output 2>&1 | FileCheck %s define void @f1() !dbg !4 { unreachable } ; CHECK: DISubprogram attached to more than one function define void @f2() !dbg !4 { unreachable } !llvm.dbg.cu = !{!1} !1 = distinct !DICompileUnit(language: DW_LANG_C99, file: !2) !2

Hi All , We have a scenario in our debugger to handle the file index in the debug_ine info like $llvm-dwarfdump -debug-line test.o file_names[ 1]: name: "test.cpp" dir_index: 0 mod_time: 0x00000000 length: 0x00000000 file_names[ 2]: name: "test.cpp" dir_index: 1 mod_time: 0x00000000 length: 0x00000000

Hi, I would like to implement macro debug info support in LLVM. Below you will find 4 parts: 1. Background on what does it mean to debug macros. 2. A brief explanation on how to represent macro debug info in DWARF 4.0. 3. The suggested design. 4. A full example: Source -> AST -> LLVM IR -> DWARF. Feel free to skip first two parts if you think you know the background.

> On Mar 29, 2018, at 10:55 AM, paul.robinson at sony.com wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of via >> llvm-dev >> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 1:54 PM >> To: aprantl at apple.com; hsiangkai at gmail.com >> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> Subject: Re:

> -----Original Message----- > From: aprantl at apple.com [mailto:aprantl at apple.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 2:23 PM > To: Robinson, Paul > Cc: hsiangkai at gmail.com; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Generate Debug Information for Labels in > Function > > > > > On Mar 29, 2018, at 10:55 AM, paul.robinson at sony.com

> 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

TL;DR: If I'm trying to define new assembler directive syntax to support DWARF v5, it seems like a good idea for all the various assemblers out there in the world to support the same syntax. How would I go about negotiating that syntax with other assembler providers? Is GNU as the only really relevant one? Long version: DWARF v5 introduces a couple of new features in the .debug_line section

> 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,

> 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 Apr 30, 2018, at 1:49 PM, Se Jong Oh <sejooh at microsoft.com> wrote: > > Hi Jonas, > > I have another case that DBG_VALUE is not produced. I would appreciate it if you could take a quick look at the testcase below. > > > test code: > > llc -mtriple=aarch64 -stop-after=livedebugvalues -o - test.ll > > ; Function Attrs: nounwind ssp uwtable >

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

> On Mar 14, 2018, at 7:55 PM, Se Jong Oh <sejooh at microsoft.com> wrote: > > Hi Jonas, > > Thanks for taking a look! It makes linear-dbg-value.ll pass for my target by producing DEBUG_VALUEs correctly. I also tried a simple function with few operations and confirmed DEBUG_VALUEs which are not produced without trasferDbgValues in SetPromotedInteger. That’s great news! Do

Hi Jonas, I have another case that DBG_VALUE is not produced. I would appreciate it if you could take a quick look at the testcase below. test code: llc -mtriple=aarch64 -stop-after=livedebugvalues -o - test.ll ; Function Attrs: nounwind ssp uwtable define void @f() #0 !dbg !4 { entry: tail call void @h(i16 0) #2, !dbg !14 %call = tail call i16 (...) @g() #2, !dbg !15 tail call void

To pass the MD5 checksum to the assembler, I added a new optional clause to the .file directive: md5 "checksum" where checksum is the 16-byte checksum in hex. It's quoted because the assembler doesn't have a way to parse a 16-byte integer. Also this is the same syntax Reid invented for the CodeView equivalent. To convey the root source filename, I allow the file number on the

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

Here are some issues that I am unclear about. What would be great is if the answers could be incorporated into the comments and documentation for DIFactory and DebugInfo.h: 1) What types of DIScope are valid arguments for DebugLoc::get()? The method takes an MDNode* argument, so looking at the function signature is no help. For example, DIFile is a subtype of DIScope, however looking at

Thanks! Unfortunately this doesn't seem to cause it, because when I fix it to match the other files (and pretty much how clang emits it:) !0 = !DIGlobalVariableExpression(var: !1, expr: !DIExpression()) !1 = !DIGlobalVariable(name: "IDispatch_UID", linkageName: "f_t2b_RemObjects_d_Elements_d_System_d_____Global.IDispatchUID", scope: !2, file: !3, type: !622, isLocal: