| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There is no situation where this rarely-used argument cannot be
substituted with a DIExpression and removing it allows us to simplify
the DWARF backend. Note that this patch does not yet remove any of
the newly dead code.
rdar://problem/33580047
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35951
llvm-svn: 309426
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
This patch is part of 3 patches that together form a single patch, but must be introduced in stages in order not to break things.
The way that LLVM interprets DW_OP_plus in DIExpression nodes is basically that of the DW_OP_plus_uconst operator since LLVM expects an unsigned constant operand. This unnecessarily restricts the DW_OP_plus operator, preventing it from being used to describe the evaluation of runtime values on the expression stack. These patches try to align the semantics of DW_OP_plus and DW_OP_minus with that of the DWARF definition, which pops two elements off the expression stack, performs the operation and pushes the result back on the stack.
This is done in three stages:
• The first patch (LLVM) adds support for DW_OP_plus_uconst.
• The second patch (Clang) contains changes all its uses from DW_OP_plus to DW_OP_plus_uconst.
• The third patch (LLVM) changes the semantics of DW_OP_plus and DW_OP_minus to be in line with its DWARF meaning. This patch includes the bitcode upgrade from legacy DIExpressions.
Patch by Sander de Smalen.
Reviewers: echristo, pcc, aprantl
Reviewed By: aprantl
Subscribers: fhahn, javed.absar, aprantl, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33894
llvm-svn: 305386
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Workaround for apparent miscompilation of PR32143.
llvm-svn: 303456
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The DWARF specification knows 3 kinds of non-empty simple location
descriptions:
1. Register location descriptions
- describe a variable in a register
- consist of only a DW_OP_reg
2. Memory location descriptions
- describe the address of a variable
3. Implicit location descriptions
- describe the value of a variable
- end with DW_OP_stack_value & friends
The existing DwarfExpression code is pretty much ignorant of these
restrictions. This used to not matter because we only emitted very
short expressions that we happened to get right by accident. This
patch makes DwarfExpression aware of the rules defined by the DWARF
standard and now chooses the right kind of location description for
each expression being emitted.
This would have been an NFC commit (for the existing testsuite) if not
for the way that clang describes captured block variables. Based on
how the previous code in LLVM emitted locations, DW_OP_deref
operations that should have come at the end of the expression are put
at its beginning. Fixing this means changing the semantics of
DIExpression, so this patch bumps the version number of DIExpression
and implements a bitcode upgrade.
There are two major changes in this patch:
I had to fix the semantics of dbg.declare for describing function
arguments. After this patch a dbg.declare always takes the *address*
of a variable as the first argument, even if the argument is not an
alloca.
When lowering a DBG_VALUE, the decision of whether to emit a register
location description or a memory location description depends on the
MachineLocation — register machine locations may get promoted to
memory locations based on their DIExpression. (Future) optimization
passes that want to salvage implicit debug location for variables may
do so by appending a DW_OP_stack_value. For example:
DBG_VALUE, [RBP-8] --> DW_OP_fbreg -8
DBG_VALUE, RAX --> DW_OP_reg0 +0
DBG_VALUE, RAX, DIExpression(DW_OP_deref) --> DW_OP_reg0 +0
All testcases that were modified were regenerated from clang. I also
added source-based testcases for each of these to the debuginfo-tests
repository over the last week to make sure that no synchronized bugs
slip in. The debuginfo-tests compile from source and run the debugger.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32382
<rdar://problem/31205000>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31439
llvm-svn: 300522
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
In preparation for allowing allocas to have non-0 addrspace.
llvm-svn: 299876
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The Fuchsia ABI defines slots from the thread pointer where the
stack-guard value for stack-protector, and the unsafe stack pointer
for safe-stack, are stored. This parallels the Android ABI support.
Patch by Roland McGrath
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30237
llvm-svn: 296081
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
The TLS slot did not exist back then.
llvm-svn: 296014
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Patch by Michael LeMay
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19852
llvm-svn: 284254
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Patch by Michael LeMay
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D25340
llvm-svn: 284139
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Add StackProtector to SafeStack. This adds limited protection against
data corruption in the caller frame. Current implementation treats
all stack protector levels as -fstack-protector-all.
llvm-svn: 266004
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 248863
|
|
|
Add two new ways of accessing the unsafe stack pointer:
* At a fixed offset from the thread TLS base. This is very similar to
StackProtector cookies, but we plan to extend it to other backends
(ARM in particular) soon. Bionic-side implementation here:
https://android-review.googlesource.com/170988.
* Via a function call, as a fallback for platforms that provide
neither a fixed TLS slot, nor a reasonable TLS implementation (i.e.
not emutls).
This is a re-commit of a change in r248357 that was reverted in
r248358.
llvm-svn: 248405
|
