https://github.com/john-brawn-arm closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85665
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
john-brawn-arm wrote:
After doing some more testing it turns out that DW_OP_bit_piece actually
doesn't work when we have a signed bitfield, as both gdb and lldb treat the
upper bits as zero. I think instead we have to do a sequence of operations to
extract the relevant bits from the value.
@@ -6178,10 +6178,16 @@ The current supported opcode vocabulary is limited:
the last entry from the second last entry and appends the result to the
expression stack.
- ``DW_OP_plus_uconst, 93`` adds ``93`` to the working expression.
-- ``DW_OP_LLVM_fragment, 16, 8``
@@ -6178,10 +6178,16 @@ The current supported opcode vocabulary is limited:
the last entry from the second last entry and appends the result to the
expression stack.
- ``DW_OP_plus_uconst, 93`` adds ``93`` to the working expression.
-- ``DW_OP_LLVM_fragment, 16, 8``
@@ -6178,10 +6178,16 @@ The current supported opcode vocabulary is limited:
the last entry from the second last entry and appends the result to the
expression stack.
- ``DW_OP_plus_uconst, 93`` adds ``93`` to the working expression.
-- ``DW_OP_LLVM_fragment, 16, 8``
https://github.com/adrian-prantl edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85665
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -6178,10 +6178,16 @@ The current supported opcode vocabulary is limited:
the last entry from the second last entry and appends the result to the
expression stack.
- ``DW_OP_plus_uconst, 93`` adds ``93`` to the working expression.
-- ``DW_OP_LLVM_fragment, 16, 8``
@@ -6178,10 +6178,16 @@ The current supported opcode vocabulary is limited:
the last entry from the second last entry and appends the result to the
expression stack.
- ``DW_OP_plus_uconst, 93`` adds ``93`` to the working expression.
-- ``DW_OP_LLVM_fragment, 16, 8``
@@ -6178,10 +6178,16 @@ The current supported opcode vocabulary is limited:
the last entry from the second last entry and appends the result to the
expression stack.
- ``DW_OP_plus_uconst, 93`` adds ``93`` to the working expression.
-- ``DW_OP_LLVM_fragment, 16, 8``
@@ -6178,10 +6178,16 @@ The current supported opcode vocabulary is limited:
the last entry from the second last entry and appends the result to the
expression stack.
- ``DW_OP_plus_uconst, 93`` adds ``93`` to the working expression.
-- ``DW_OP_LLVM_fragment, 16, 8``
https://github.com/john-brawn-arm updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85665
>From 665d4034a1428d9b5cf1c4d4e89a16fa00b94fb5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Brawn
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:17:03 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [DebugInfo] Use DW_op_bit_piece for structured bindings
@@ -6178,10 +6178,16 @@ The current supported opcode vocabulary is limited:
the last entry from the second last entry and appends the result to the
expression stack.
- ``DW_OP_plus_uconst, 93`` adds ``93`` to the working expression.
-- ``DW_OP_LLVM_fragment, 16, 8``
@@ -6178,10 +6178,16 @@ The current supported opcode vocabulary is limited:
the last entry from the second last entry and appends the result to the
expression stack.
- ``DW_OP_plus_uconst, 93`` adds ``93`` to the working expression.
-- ``DW_OP_LLVM_fragment, 16, 8``
https://github.com/john-brawn-arm updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85665
>From 665d4034a1428d9b5cf1c4d4e89a16fa00b94fb5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Brawn
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:17:03 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [DebugInfo] Use DW_op_bit_piece for structured bindings
jryans wrote:
It would be great to add a few notes to document this additional op in the
[`DIExpression` list of ops](https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#diexpression).
It would be especially good for those added docs to clarify the difference
between this and `DW_OP_LLVM_fragment`. (I do
https://github.com/john-brawn-arm updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85665
>From 665d4034a1428d9b5cf1c4d4e89a16fa00b94fb5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Brawn
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:17:03 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [DebugInfo] Use DW_op_bit_piece for structured bindings
https://github.com/pogo59 commented:
The LLVM changes don't have a test. I expect there are existing
expression-to-final-DWARF tests that you can modify to throw in a few bit-piece
operators and show they come out correctly.
Offhand it seems quite reasonable to use DW_OP_bit_piece for
john-brawn-arm wrote:
Ping.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85665
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ struct S0 {
// CHECK-LABEL: define dso_local void @_Z3fS0v
// CHECK:alloca %struct.S0, align 4
// CHECK-NEXT:[[TMP0:%.*]] = alloca %struct.S0, align 4
-// CHECK: call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata ptr [[TMP0]], metadata
@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ struct S0 {
// CHECK-LABEL: define dso_local void @_Z3fS0v
// CHECK:alloca %struct.S0, align 4
// CHECK-NEXT:[[TMP0:%.*]] = alloca %struct.S0, align 4
-// CHECK: call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata ptr [[TMP0]], metadata
@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ struct S0 {
// CHECK-LABEL: define dso_local void @_Z3fS0v
// CHECK:alloca %struct.S0, align 4
// CHECK-NEXT:[[TMP0:%.*]] = alloca %struct.S0, align 4
-// CHECK: call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata ptr [[TMP0]], metadata
@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ struct S0 {
// CHECK-LABEL: define dso_local void @_Z3fS0v
// CHECK:alloca %struct.S0, align 4
// CHECK-NEXT:[[TMP0:%.*]] = alloca %struct.S0, align 4
-// CHECK: call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata ptr [[TMP0]], metadata
@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ struct S0 {
// CHECK-LABEL: define dso_local void @_Z3fS0v
// CHECK:alloca %struct.S0, align 4
// CHECK-NEXT:[[TMP0:%.*]] = alloca %struct.S0, align 4
-// CHECK: call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata ptr [[TMP0]], metadata
@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ struct S0 {
// CHECK-LABEL: define dso_local void @_Z3fS0v
// CHECK:alloca %struct.S0, align 4
// CHECK-NEXT:[[TMP0:%.*]] = alloca %struct.S0, align 4
-// CHECK: call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata ptr [[TMP0]], metadata
@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ struct S0 {
// CHECK-LABEL: define dso_local void @_Z3fS0v
// CHECK:alloca %struct.S0, align 4
// CHECK-NEXT:[[TMP0:%.*]] = alloca %struct.S0, align 4
-// CHECK: call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata ptr [[TMP0]], metadata
@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ struct S0 {
// CHECK-LABEL: define dso_local void @_Z3fS0v
// CHECK:alloca %struct.S0, align 4
// CHECK-NEXT:[[TMP0:%.*]] = alloca %struct.S0, align 4
-// CHECK: call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata ptr [[TMP0]], metadata
@@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ struct S0 {
// CHECK-LABEL: define dso_local void @_Z3fS0v
// CHECK:alloca %struct.S0, align 4
// CHECK-NEXT:[[TMP0:%.*]] = alloca %struct.S0, align 4
-// CHECK: call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata ptr [[TMP0]], metadata
https://github.com/adrian-prantl edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85665
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/adrian-prantl requested changes to this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85665
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-ir
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: John Brawn (john-brawn-arm)
Changes
Currently we use DW_OP_plus_uconst to handle the bitfield offset and handle the
bitfield size by choosing a type size that matches, but this doesn't work if
either offset
https://github.com/john-brawn-arm created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85665
Currently we use DW_OP_plus_uconst to handle the bitfield offset and handle the
bitfield size by choosing a type size that matches, but this doesn't work if
either offset or size aren't byte-aligned.
31 matches
Mail list logo
