| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Instead of going to the debug_loc section directly, use new
DWARFDie::getLocations instead. This means that the code will now
automatically support debug_loclists sections.
This is the last usage of the old debug_loc methods, and they can now be
removed.
Reviewers: dblaikie, JDevlieghere, aprantl, SouraVX
Subscribers: hiraditya, probinson, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70534
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This patch replaces the tabs by spaces and avoid the need for a
debug_str section by moving all strings inline. It also removes the
hardcoded DIE offsets in the test, which will simplify a follow-up
patch.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is a resubmit of r331868 (D46583), which was reverted due to
failures on the PS4 bot.
These have been resolved with r332246/D46748.
llvm-svn: 332349
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The new verifier check has found an error in the
debug-names-name-collisions.ll test on the PS4 bot:
error: Name Index @ 0x0: Entry @ 0xdc: mismatched Name of DIE @ 0x23: index - _ZN3foo3fooE; debug_info - foo.
Reverting while I investigate whether this is a bug in the verifier or
the generator.
This reverts commit r331868.
llvm-svn: 331869
|
|
|
Summary:
This patch implements a check which makes sure all entries required by
the DWARF v5 specification are present in the Name Index. The algorithm
tries to follow the wording of Section 6.1.1.1 of the spec as closely as
possible.
The main deviation from it is that instead of a whitelist-based approach
in the spec "The name index must contain an entry for each debugging
information entry that defines a named subprogram, label, variable,
type, or namespace" I chose a blacklist-based one, where I consider
everything to be "in" and then remove the entries that don't make sense.
I did this because it has more potential for catching interesting cases
and the above is a bit vague (it uses plain words like "variable" and
"subprogram", but the rest of the section speaks about specific TAGs).
This approach has raised some interesting questions, the main one being
whether enumerator values should be indexed. The consensus seems to be
that they should, although it does not follow from section 6.1.1.1.
For the time being I made the verifier ignore these, as LLVM does not do
this yet, and I wanted to get a clean run when verifying generated debug
info.
Another interesting case was the DW_TAG_imported_declaration. It was not
immediately clear to me whether this should go in or not, but currently
it is not indexed, and (unlike the enumerators) in does not seem to cause
problems for LLDB, so I've also ignored it.
Reviewers: JDevlieghere, aprantl, dblaikie
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46583
llvm-svn: 331868
|
