similar to: Question on Aliasing and invariant load hoisting

> 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

Hi, Below is the snippet of LLVM IR code generated by Flang ---snip-- %3 = getelementptr i64, i64* %"a$sd", i64 11, !dbg !16 %4 = bitcast i64* %3 to i32*, !dbg !16 %5 = load i32, i32* %4, align 4, !dbg !16, !tbaa !22 ---snip-- My requirement is for any such LoadInst (example: %5), I want to check if its base GEP (i.e. %3) loads at particular offset (11) from its corresponding

> 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

> I don't see how this is a meaningful distinction in LLVM IR. In LLVM IR we only have SSA values. An SSA value could be an alloca, or a gep into an alloca, or spilled onto the stack at the MIR level, in which case the dbg.value should get lowered into a memory location (if it isn't explicitly a DW_OP_stack_value). I think the distinction is still important; even at the IR level, if we

On 05/30/2018 06:04 AM, Siddharth Bhat via llvm-dev wrote: > You can run SCEV which will see through bitcasts and GEPs, so it > should give an expression of the form (base + offset) on the pointer > of the load. Specifically, you can use ScalarEvolution to subtract the expression for the base descriptor from the expression for the loaded pointer and see if the result is a SCEVConstant.

> 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

----Snip-- struct st1{ int a; }; struct st2{ int b; }; struct st { struct st1 obj1; struct st2 obj2; }Obj; int test1(struct st1 * ptr1 , struct st2 * ptr2, struct st2 *ptr3) { ptr1->a = 10; *ptr3 = *ptr2; return ptr1->a; } --Snip--- For the above case GCC is able to store forward the value 10 to the return place. LLVM is not doing this. GCC https://godbolt.org/z/FCjCXy LLVM

You can run SCEV which will see through bitcasts and GEPs, so it should give an expression of the form (base + offset) on the pointer of the load. Cheers siddharth On Wed 30 May, 2018, 16:30 Venkataramanan Kumar via llvm-dev, < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Below is the snippet of LLVM IR code generated by Flang > > ---snip-- > %3 = getelementptr i64,

> 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

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

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

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

Dear all, Hi! Recently, I notice a situation where I cannot infer the size of the outermost dimension of array in the function interface. To concretely depict the problem, I show the C source code and the generated IR code at the end. The array size of A[] is 51 but this information is lost in the generated IR. How can I maintain such information in IR? Should I set some argument for

Debug info today handles two cases reasonably well: 1. At -O0, dbg.declare does a good job describing variables that live at some known stack offset 2. With optimizations, variables promoted to SSA can be described with dbg.value This leaves behind a large hole in our optimized debug info: variables that cannot be promoted, typically because they are address-taken. This is

> 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

Hi Adrian & Stephen, One thought here: But — not all memory locations are l-values. If we have a DWARF location list for variable "x" which points to a memory address for the first n instructions and the switches to a constant for the remainder of the scope, the memory address is not guaranteed to be an l-value, because writing the the memory address cannot affect the later part of

> 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

Dear David, Thanks for your prompt reply! Sure, I can implement a AST visitor to go through the AST to get the information but I just wonder whether there is any other way to let Clang do so. What I am considering is how to let the generated IR looks like below, which some tools realize: define dso_local i32 @_Z1fPii([51 x i32]* %A, i32 %x) local_unnamed_addr #0 !dbg !7 { entry: ...

The Loop Strength Reduction pass appears to break debug information even for the most basic input. I believe this is a well known issue already (see https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38815) but I also believe that it deserve some extra attention. Consider the following input compiled with 'clang -g -O3 foo.c -mllvm -print-after-all' --- void foo(unsigned char *p) { #pragma clang loop

What are you querying the alias analysis on in the above example - between the load and store? How are you creating your MemoryLocation for those too? On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 6:03 AM Venkataramanan Kumar via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Can someone please clarify me on this? > > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 22:25, Venkataramanan Kumar < >