similar to: [RFC] Allowing debug intrinsics to reference multiple SSA Values

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

>As the person who has advocated for DW_OP_LLVM_arg(N) before, my main motivation was to resolve the ambiguity of constant DIExpressions: As a worst-case example: > >dbg.value(%undef, !DILocalVariable(x), DIExpression(DW_OP_constu, 42)) > >Is this undefined, or constant 42? > >But if we make dbg.value fully variadic with all parameters pushed to the stack ahead of time, we can

> I don't have a strong opinion on representation. I can see how having a dedicated instruction to model implicit pointers would aid readability & be simpler to document/grok, but perhaps in the future we'll want to support other operations that refer to variable > DIEs. In the short term migrating to an extended dbg.value representation might take more work. Alok, wdyt? Below

Hi folks, I am pushing a PoC patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D70833 for review which includes the case when temporary is promoted. For such cases it generates IR as call void @llvm.dbg.derefval(metadata i32 3, metadata !25, metadata !DIExpression(DW_OP_LLVM_explicit_pointer, DW_OP_LLVM_arg0)), !dbg !32 And llvm-darfdump output looks like ------------- 0x0000007b:

(I'm still pretty concerned that there are IR changes going in for a feature that seems incomplete and more invasive than really seems justified to me - though I admit I'm clearly not paying enough attention to this feature to have a nuanced/fully informed opinion & so maybe I just need to step back from all of this - but given the addition of new intrinsics, it seems like there should

> 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

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

Let me try to summarize the implementation first. At the moment, there are two branches. 1. When an existing variable is optimized out and that variable is used to get the de-refereced value, pointed to by another pointer/reference variable. Such cases are being addressed using Dwarf expression DW_OP_implicit_pointer as de-referenced value of a pointer can be seen implicitly (using another

Hi Djordje, On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 7:52 AM Djordje Todorovic <Djordje.Todorovic at syrmia.com> wrote: > Using entry-values ('callee' side of the feature) is not enough in any case. It is always connected to the call-site-param (function arguments but we call it call-site-params; 'caller' side of the feature) debug info. I believe that there are call-site-params that could

> 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

Hi Djordje, [Late reply as I was away, alas], For the example in https://reviews.llvm.org/D85012 , I'm not sure that just using an entry value is correct. The reason why the dbg.values for arguments are set to undef is not because the value can't be described, it's because deadargelim changes all the call sites to pass in 'undef', which I believe makes the value unrecoverable

> 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

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 currently being proposed/reviewed (based on the DWARF feature as spec'd) is a pretty big change & I'm not sure I understand the motivation, exactly. The core point of my confusion: Why does describing the thing a pointer

> 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

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 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: >>> >>> >>>>

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

Hi, I'm trying to achieve the following: - I have a global variable BaseAddress that holds the base address of a contiguous dynamically allocated memory block. - I have a number of logical variables of different types that are mapped on certain address ranges inside the memory block pointed to by BaseAddress. The offset and the size of each such logical variable inside the memory block are

> 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, >>>

> 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 DBG_VALUE to the stack, followed by a combination of DW_OP_dup, DW_OP_pick, DW_OP_swap, DW_OP_rot, and DW_OP_over. However, the resulting expressions can get very long and unwieldy and it is easier to generate efficient DWARF from