|
Revision tags: llvmorg-20.1.0, llvmorg-20.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-20.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-20.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-21-init, llvmorg-19.1.7, llvmorg-19.1.6, llvmorg-19.1.5, llvmorg-19.1.4, llvmorg-19.1.3, llvmorg-19.1.2, llvmorg-19.1.1, llvmorg-19.1.0, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc4, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-20-init, llvmorg-18.1.8, llvmorg-18.1.7, llvmorg-18.1.6, llvmorg-18.1.5, llvmorg-18.1.4, llvmorg-18.1.3, llvmorg-18.1.2, llvmorg-18.1.1, llvmorg-18.1.0, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc4, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-19-init, llvmorg-17.0.6, llvmorg-17.0.5, llvmorg-17.0.4, llvmorg-17.0.3, llvmorg-17.0.2, llvmorg-17.0.1, llvmorg-17.0.0, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-18-init, llvmorg-16.0.6, llvmorg-16.0.5, llvmorg-16.0.4, llvmorg-16.0.3, llvmorg-16.0.2, llvmorg-16.0.1, llvmorg-16.0.0, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-17-init, llvmorg-15.0.7, llvmorg-15.0.6, llvmorg-15.0.5, llvmorg-15.0.4, llvmorg-15.0.3, llvmorg-15.0.2, llvmorg-15.0.1, llvmorg-15.0.0, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-16-init, llvmorg-14.0.6, llvmorg-14.0.5, llvmorg-14.0.4, llvmorg-14.0.3, llvmorg-14.0.2, llvmorg-14.0.1, llvmorg-14.0.0, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-15-init, llvmorg-13.0.1, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc3, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc2, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc1, llvmorg-13.0.0, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-14-init, llvmorg-12.0.1, llvmorg-12.0.1-rc4, llvmorg-12.0.1-rc3, llvmorg-12.0.1-rc2, llvmorg-12.0.1-rc1, llvmorg-12.0.0, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc5, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-11.1.0, llvmorg-11.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-13-init, llvmorg-11.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-11.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-11.0.1, llvmorg-11.0.1-rc2, llvmorg-11.0.1-rc1 |
| #
15801f16 |
| 23-Jul-2020 |
Sourabh Singh Tomar <[email protected]> |
[DebugInfo] Emit DW_OP_implicit_value for Floating point constants
llvm is missing support for DW_OP_implicit_value operation.
DW_OP_implicit_value op is indispensable for cases such as
optimized ou
[DebugInfo] Emit DW_OP_implicit_value for Floating point constants
llvm is missing support for DW_OP_implicit_value operation.
DW_OP_implicit_value op is indispensable for cases such as
optimized out long double variables.
For intro refer: DWARFv5 Spec Pg: 40 2.6.1.1.4 Implicit Location Descriptions
Consider the following example:
```
int main() {
long double ld = 3.14;
printf("dummy\n");
ld *= ld;
return 0;
}
```
when compiled with tunk `clang` as
`clang test.c -g -O1` produces following location description
of variable `ld`:
```
DW_AT_location (0x00000000:
[0x0000000000201691, 0x000000000020169b): DW_OP_constu 0xc8f5c28f5c28f800, DW_OP_stack_value, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_constu 0x4000, DW_OP_stack_value, DW_OP_bit_piece 0x10 0x40, DW_OP_stack_value)
DW_AT_name ("ld")
```
Here one may notice that this representation is incorrect(DWARF4
stack could only hold integers(and only up to the size of address)).
Here the variable size itself is `128` bit.
GDB and LLDB confirms this:
```
(gdb) p ld
$1 = <invalid float value>
(lldb) frame variable ld
(long double) ld = <extracting data from value failed>
```
GCC represents/uses DW_OP_implicit_value in these sort of situations.
Based on the discussion with Jakub Jelinek regarding GCC's motivation
for using this, I concluded that DW_OP_implicit_value is most appropriate
in this case.
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-July/233057.html
GDB seems happy after this patch:(LLDB doesn't have support
for DW_OP_implicit_value)
```
(gdb) p ld
p ld
$1 = 3.14000000000000012434
```
Reviewed By: aprantl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83560
show more ...
|
| #
6b55a958 |
| 23-Jul-2020 |
Sourabh Singh Tomar <[email protected]> |
[DebugInfo] Emit DW_OP_implicit_value for Floating point constants
Summary:
llvm is missing support for DW_OP_implicit_value operation.
DW_OP_implicit_value op is indispensable for cases such as
opt
[DebugInfo] Emit DW_OP_implicit_value for Floating point constants
Summary:
llvm is missing support for DW_OP_implicit_value operation.
DW_OP_implicit_value op is indispensable for cases such as
optimized out long double variables.
For intro refer: DWARFv5 Spec Pg: 40 2.6.1.1.4 Implicit Location Descriptions
Consider the following example:
```
int main() {
long double ld = 3.14;
printf("dummy\n");
ld *= ld;
return 0;
}
```
when compiled with tunk `clang` as
`clang test.c -g -O1` produces following location description
of variable `ld`:
```
DW_AT_location (0x00000000:
[0x0000000000201691, 0x000000000020169b): DW_OP_constu 0xc8f5c28f5c28f800, DW_OP_stack_value, DW_OP_piece 0x8, DW_OP_constu 0x4000, DW_OP_stack_value, DW_OP_bit_piece 0x10 0x40, DW_OP_stack_value)
DW_AT_name ("ld")
```
Here one may notice that this representation is incorrect(DWARF4
stack could only hold integers(and only up to the size of address)).
Here the variable size itself is `128` bit.
GDB and LLDB confirms this:
```
(gdb) p ld
$1 = <invalid float value>
(lldb) frame variable ld
(long double) ld = <extracting data from value failed>
```
GCC represents/uses DW_OP_implicit_value in these sort of situations.
Based on the discussion with Jakub Jelinek regarding GCC's motivation
for using this, I concluded that DW_OP_implicit_value is most appropriate
in this case.
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-July/233057.html
GDB seems happy after this patch:(LLDB doesn't have support
for DW_OP_implicit_value)
```
(gdb) p ld
p ld
$1 = 3.14000000000000012434
```
Reviewed By: aprantl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83560
show more ...
|