similar to: [RFC] [DebugInfo] Using DW_OP_entry_value within LLVM IR

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

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

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

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++

> 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

Hi Vedant, Thanks a lot for your comments! >It looks like a lot of the new infrastructure introduced here <https://github.com/djolertrk/llvm-di-checker/commit/9d26ac2557c584f6cf82ac5535fc47f8bd267a27> consists of logic copied from the debugify implementation. Why is introducing a new pair of passes better than extending the ones we have? The core infrastructure needed to track

Thank you for your interest and comments! Please see my responses inline. On 2/7/19, 3:17 PM, "aprantl at apple.com on behalf of Adrian Prantl" <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 2019, at 1:49 PM, Ananthakrishna Sowda (asowda) via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > Following is a proposal to improve location

Hi, I am sharing the proposal [0] which gives a brief introduction for the implementation of the LLVM DI Checker utility. On a very high level, it is a pair of LLVM (IR) Passes that check the preservation of the original debug info in the optimizations. There are options controlling the passes, that could be invoked from ``clang`` as well as from ``opt`` level. By testing the utility on the

Hello All, I was working on some dwarf-5 features and debugging optimized code support in clang and llvm. Noticed that, DW_TAG_call_site is supported in llvm middle-end. but clang is not emitting these. I was hoping, if someone could provide current status of these features and current status of dwarf-5 features in clang and llvm. That will be immensely helpful. Thanks! Sourabh. --------------

Hi, Following is a proposal to improve location coverage for Function parameters in LLVM. The patches for review will be posted soon. RFC: [DebugInfo] Improving Debug Information in LLVM to Recover Optimized-out Function Parameters Ananthakrishna Sowda(Cisco), asowda at cisco.com Nikola Prica (RT-RK/Cisco), nprica at rtrk.com Djordje Todorovic(RT-RK/Cisco), djtodorovic at rtrk.com Ivan Baev

> 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 Xiang, On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 1:59 AM Zhang, Xiang1 <xiang1.zhang at intel.com> wrote: > Jeremy wrote: > > ... The value %0 is live up to and including the ADD64ri but not past it, meaning LLVM today will drop the DBG_VALUE ... > > Just a little puzzle about the " drop the DBG_VALUE ", maybe I didn't get your key point, >

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.

On 2/8/19, 7:15 AM, "paul.robinson at sony.com" <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: It's fantastic to see this happening! It'll be really nice to start seeing some DWARF 5 feature work (as opposed to the infrastructure stuff, which has its own benefits but doesn't help the end-user's debugging experience). A couple of questions below. --paulr

Hi all, It looks like the llvm-sphinx-docs fails for a long time (at least 20 days). Can someone please confirm if this is true? Best regards, Djordje

Hi, Thanks you all for the collaboration! :) Paul, > This is not how tuning-controlled features are supposed to work. I will comment on the review. I see, I am working on addressing the comments from the [1]. I will update the diff asap. Thanks. Vedant, There are no entry values generated at -O0 level, but I will add a test case for it. Thanks. Best regards, Djordje On 8.2.20. 02:41,

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

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.

[+ some folks more knowledgable about the Machine layer than me.] > On Feb 12, 2019, at 5:07 AM, Nikola Prica <nikola.prica at rt-rk.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am one of the authors of this feature. On Phabricator, we agreed to > take discussion whether encoding this in IR and threading it through the > compiler or performing a late MIR analysis is the better approach.

Hi, [+ Quentin] Sorry for the late reply. > On Feb 13, 2019, at 9:09 AM, Nikola Prica <nikola.prica at rt-rk.com> wrote: > > On 12.02.2019. 18:06, Adrian Prantl wrote: >> [+ some folks more knowledgable about the Machine layer than me.] >> > That would be useful for us too! :) > > >>> On Feb 12, 2019, at 5:07 AM, Nikola Prica <nikola.prica at