similar to: DIGlobalVariableExpression doc in langref

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 9:48 AM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 8, 2020, at 9:33 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 9:29 AM Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev > > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Jul 8, 2020, at 5:21

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 9:29 AM Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 8, 2020, at 5:21 AM, Tozer, Stephen <stephen.tozer at sony.com> wrote: > > > >> To summarize my understanding: Neither of these operators is strictly necessary, since the same effect can be achieved by implicitly pushing all operands of a

*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

> That makes sense, and I think for "direct" values in your definition it is true that all direct values are r-values. > Why do we need DW_OP_LLVM_direct when we already have DW_OP_LLVM_stack_value? Can you give an example of something that is definitely not a stack value, but direct? The difference in definition is the intention: DW_OP_LLVM_direct means "we'd like this

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:

> I can see how that could potentially be useful. I'm not sure how often we could practically make use of a situation like this, but I understand your motivation. Indeed, I don't expect us to cancel out DWARF expressions like that very often. Although that edge case is likely to be very rare, the _direct operator itself will appear very frequently, as it would be used for every

Yep, it's once again variable and it's type using different scopes. Is there any strong reason why you set scope for global DIDerivedType? ________________________________________ От: Carlo Kok <ck at remobjects.com> Отправлено: 21 марта 2018 г. 18:22 Кому: Evgeny Leviant; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Тема: Re: [llvm-dev] lld/lto/win32 crash on DIE code Thanks! Unfortunately this

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:01 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:01 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:01 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I guess you described this already, but talking it through for >>> myself/maybe others will

> That sounds to me to be the same concept that I am calling r-value vs. l-value. Do you agree, or is there some subtlety that I am missing? I've been assuming that the l-value vs r-value distinction is analogous to C++: an l-value can be written to by the debugger, an r-value cannot. A memory location and a register location are both l-values, while implicit locations (stack

> On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:33 AM, Jeremy Morse <jeremy.morse.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi llvm-dev@, > > Switching focus to the LLVM implementation, the significant change is > using dbg.value's first operand to refer to a DILocalVariable, rather > than a Value. There's some impedance mismatch here, because all the > documentation (for example in the

Hi Folks, Looking into some other issues, I came across a couple of oddities with regard to debug info for global variables (PR39900 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39900> and PR39899 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39899>). But a broader question I was wondering if it was anyone's radar (it's not something I'll be pushing on myself in the near future, but

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:01 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 1:00 PM Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> LLVM SSA values obviously do not have an address that we can take and >> they don’t live in registers, so neither the default memory location model >> nor DW_OP_regN make sense

> Can you elaborate what "direct" means? I'm having trouble understanding what the opposite (a non-exact value) would be. Apologies, "exact" was a misleading/incorrect term. By direct, I mean that the expression computes the value of the variable, as opposed to its memory address, or the value that it points to. Within LLVM, where we don't have DW_OP_reg/DW_OP_breg

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:14 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 5, 2018, at 3:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > Looking into some other issues, I came across a couple of oddities with > regard to debug info for global variables (PR39900 and PR39899). > > > > But a

What would it look like without this extension? If we modeled it as if all the register values were already on the stack (an extension of the current way where the singular value is modeled as being already on the stack, if I understand it correctly?)? If it's decided that the best approach is to introduce something like DW_OP_LLVM_register - might be worth migrating to that first (basically

Currently there is a series of patches undergoing review[0] that seek to enable the use of multiple IR/MIR values when describing a source variable's location. The current plan for the MIR is to add a new instruction, DBG_VALUE_LIST, that supports this functionality by having a variable number of operands. It may be better however to simply replace the existing DBG_VALUE behaviour entirely

> I'm not sure this will work as stated here. Indirectness is (mostly) orthogonal to DW_OP_stack_value. DW_OP_stack_value denotes that we reconstructed the value of the variable, but it doesn't exist in the program ("The DW_OP_stack_value operation specifies that the object does not exist in memory but its value is nonetheless known"), for example, a constant value. I think we

Adrian, Thanks for a quick reply! On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Roman Levenstein <romixlev at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to achieve the following: >> >> - I have a global variable BaseAddress that holds the base address of >> a

> On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:47 PM, Roman Levenstein <romixlev at gmail.com> wrote: > > Adrian, > > Thanks for a quick reply! > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Roman Levenstein <romixlev at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>>

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:47 PM, Roman Levenstein <romixlev at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Adrian, >> >> Thanks for a quick reply! >> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>