similar to: Dwarf - 5 features in clang and llvm

> On Sep 10, 2019, at 6:15 AM, Djordje Todorovic via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Sourabh, > > Support for call-site related DWARF 5 tag/attributes is implemented very late, in the LLVM middle-end. > Please note that there is also the IR-level flag (DIFlagAllCallsDescribed) that lowers to > the DW_AT_call_all_calls. > > There is also

Hello Djordje, Vedant, Thanks a lot for sharing information. I have a doubt, please consider the following simple test case- #include <iostream> int func(int* ptr){ std::cout << *ptr; return *ptr + 5; } int main(int argc, char** argv){ int a = 4; int* ptr_a = &a; int b = func(ptr_a); return 0; } commandline used -- bash$ clang++

Hi all, The debug entry values feature introduces new DWARF symbols (tags, attributes, operations) on caller (call site) as well as on callee side; and the intention is to improve debugging user experience by using the functionality (especially in “optimized” code by turning “<optimized_out>” values into real values). The call site information includes info about call itself (described with

Hello, In regard to the review request https://reviews.llvm.org/D74470, I am trying to move five of the DIFlags to DISPFlag for the moment namely DIFlagExplicit, DIFlagPrototyped, DIFlagNoReturn, DIFlagThunk, DIFlagAllCallsDescribed. The llvm ir format for DISubprogram currently has backword compatibility where the isLocal, isDefinition, virtuality, isOptimized and SPFlags are mutually exclusive.

Yes, removing the support for isLocal, isDefinition fields completely from ll files, currently the LLParser still parses it. I want to remove it and update the all the ll files which still uses it. Also the metadata read will support old format, no changes in that. so if ll file has isLocal and isDefinition it will result in parser error. But the bitcode read will work as usual. - Chirag.

> Could you please describe what is the benefit of that? Currently there are two ways to provide DISPFlagDefinition, via bool and SPFlag, I would like to make it only via SPFlags, it will be NFC and it will make the changes in parser simpler for moving five flags from from DIFlags to DISPFlags. Currently parser checks the presence of SPFlags to see if the definition is present in bool or spflag

Hi David, Thanks for your comments! I just want to add that I think it would neat if the entry values could map into multi-location dbg.values and DBG_VALUEs that are being proposed on this list. For example, if we have: int local = param1 + param2 + 123; I think it would be good if we would be able to to represent the four different permutations of the values of the parameters being

Hey folks, I'm trying to wrap my head around the implementation, purpose, and costs involved in both the GCC-extension v4 and standard v5 DW_TAG_call_site, call site parameters, addresses, etc. So picking up from some of the design discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D72489: Me (Blaikie): I'm not sure why AT_call_return_pc would be needed at a tail call site as the debugger must

Hi Tom, I do not have SVN account, for accessing LLVM. Thanks, Sourabh On Tue 29 Oct, 2019, 9:08 AM Tom Stellard, <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/26/2019 03:39 AM, Sourabh Singh Tomar wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I recently requested Chris regarding commit access to LLVM. > > He asked me to wait till the GitHub migration completes and then ask in >

Hello everyone, Since MLIR landed today. I'm trying to build it using cmake ../llvm/ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RELEASE -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=X86 -DLLVM_ALL_PROJECTS="clang;lld;lldb;mlir" -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON -DCLANG_DEFAULT_LINKER:STRING=lld and also by adding -DLLVM_ALL_PROJECTS. It's giving this compilation error -- Building CXX object

These errors seem pretty pervasive for me on a clean build. It appears that it arises because when tablegen'd headers are included in a .h file, every place where that .h file is used needs a dependency on the corresponding IncGen targets. This seems broken in the short term and unmaintainable in the long term. There really needs to be a way of automatically generating the right

Hi llvm-dev, cfe-dev, It's been a while since our team is investigating DebugInfo in LLVM, we're looking forward to contribute and enhance in LLVM DebugInfo. We,'ve been investigating mostly on DWARF-5 aspects -- couple of them to mention-- 1. Language aspects 2. Location mostly optimized out ones 3. DebugInfo conformance to DWARF-5 To avoid getting conflicted with some body

Thanks, David for updating us. Regarding, mail address, can use anyone{@gmail or @amd}. but sourav0311 at gmail.com works best for me for mailing lists related stuff. Regarding, GDB side of DWARFv5 side of things, we've testing GDB-8.3 WRT DWARFv5 clang and gcc binaries to get better idea of debuggability of clang generated binaries with GDB. Primary motivation being GDB better handling of

Hi folks, While building openmpi.4.0.0(Optimized debug build), using trunk clang we encountered a crash(assertion failure). Initially assertion seems trivial: [...] void llvm::DwarfExpression::addFragmentOffset(const llvm::DIExpression*): Assertion `FragmentOffset >= OffsetInBits && "overlapping or duplicate fragments"' failed. [...] But, narrowing to RC. We discovered

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

> 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 Mar 30, 2020, at 4:13 AM, Jeremy Morse via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Sourabh, > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:09 AM Sourabh Singh Tomar via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Under what circumstances should a frontend choose to emit(at -O0(No optimization)) llvm.dbg.value for a local variable. >> >> I

Hello Everyone, I have general question WRT llvm.dbg.value intrinsic function semantics. Under what circumstances should a frontend choose to emit(at -O0(No optimization)) llvm.dbg.value for a local variable. I saw some debuginfo code in flang(older one), sort of it choose to emit *llvm.dbg.value* for *every load operation* happening on a *local variable*. And as noted below in IR snippet it

Hi Sourabh, Thanks for raising this issue. To answer your question, (afaik) there isn’t anyone working on DW_AT_start_scope support in tree. We’re looking for a solution to this problem for Swift debugging, where it's important not to make a debug location for a variable available until its (guaranteed) initialization is complete. If at all possible, I’d /much/ rather we use the existing

Hello Everyone, I'm working on providing support for New Language Tags, prescribed in DWARF-5. DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_03 DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_11 DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_14 While, C++11 and C++14, is defined and can be emitted by Frontend. "include/clang/Basci/LangStandard.h" CPlusPlus = (1 << 5), CPlusPlus11 = (1 << 6), CPlusPlus14 = (1 << 7), CPlusPlus17 = (1 <<