Summary:
Most DIExpressions are empty or very simple. When they are complex, they
tend to be unique, so checking them inline is reasonable.
This also avoids the need for CodeGen passes to append to the
llvm.dbg.mir named md node.
See also PR22780, for making DIExpression not be an MDNode.
Reviewers: aprantl, dexonsmith, dblaikie
Subscribers: qcolombet, javed.absar, eraman, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37075
llvm-svn: 311594
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
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: pcc, echristo, aprantl
Reviewed By: aprantl
Subscribers: fhahn, aprantl, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33892
llvm-svn: 305304
so we can stop using DW_OP_bit_piece with the wrong semantics.
The entire back story can be found here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20161114/405934.html
The gist is that in LLVM we've been misinterpreting DW_OP_bit_piece's
offset field to mean the offset into the source variable rather than
the offset into the location at the top the DWARF expression stack. In
order to be able to fix this in a subsequent patch, this patch
introduces a dedicated DW_OP_LLVM_fragment operation with the
semantics that we used to apply to DW_OP_bit_piece, which is what we
actually need while inside of LLVM. This patch is complete with a
bitcode upgrade for expressions using the old format. It does not yet
fix the DWARF backend to use DW_OP_bit_piece correctly.
Implementation note: We discussed several options for implementing
this, including reserving a dedicated field in DIExpression for the
fragment size and offset, but using an custom operator at the end of
the expression works just fine and is more efficient because we then
only pay for it when we need it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27361
rdar://problem/29335809
llvm-svn: 288683
Reid Kleckner