A few DW_TAG_formal_parameter's of the same function may have the same
name (e.g. variadic (template) functions) or don't have a name at all
(if the parameter isn't used inside the function body), but we still
need to be able to distinguish between them to get correct number of 'total vars'
and 'availability' metric.
Reviewed by: aprantl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73003
DW_TAG_subroutine_type is not really useful for statistics purposes, as it never
has location information. But it may contain DW_TAG_formal_parameter
children that generate number of parameters w/o location and decrease
'availability' metric significantly.
Reviewed by: djtodoro
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72983
Summary:
The patch removes OffsetToFirstDefinition in the 'scope bytes total'
statistic computation. Thus it unifies the way the scope and the coverage
buckets are computed. The rationals behind that are the following:
1. OffsetToFirstDefinition was used to calculate the variable's life range.
However, there is no simple way to do it accurately, so the scope calculated
this way might be misleading. See D69027 for more details on the subject.
2. Both 'scope bytes total' and coverage buckets seem to be intended
to represent the same data in different ways. Otherwise, the statistics
might be controversial and confusing.
Note that the approach gives up a thorough evaluation of debug information
completeness (i.e. coverage buckets by themselves doesn't tell how good
the debug information is). Only changes in coverage over time make
a 'physical' sense.
Reviewers: djtodoro, aprantl, vsk, dblaikie, avl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70548
Add statistics for abstract origins, function, variable and parameter
locations; break the 'variable' counts down into variables and
parameters. Also update call site counting to check for
DW_AT_call_{file,line} in addition to DW_TAG_call_site.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58849
llvm-svn: 355243
DW_TAG_subprogram DIEs should not be counted in the inlined function statistic. This also addresses the source variables count, as that uses the inlined function count in its calculations.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57849
llvm-svn: 353491
In order to set breakpoints on labels and list source code around
labels, we need collect debug information for labels, i.e., label
name, the function label belong, line number in the file, and the
address label located. In order to keep these information in LLVM
IR and to allow backend to generate debug information correctly.
We create a new kind of metadata for labels, DILabel. The format
of DILabel is
!DILabel(scope: !1, name: "foo", file: !2, line: 3)
We hope to keep debug information as much as possible even the
code is optimized. So, we create a new kind of intrinsic for label
metadata to avoid the metadata is eliminated with basic block.
The intrinsic will keep existing if we keep it from optimized out.
The format of the intrinsic is
llvm.dbg.label(metadata !1)
It has only one argument, that is the DILabel metadata. The
intrinsic will follow the label immediately. Backend could get the
label metadata through the intrinsic's parameter.
We also create DIBuilder API for labels to be used by Frontend.
Frontend could use createLabel() to allocate DILabel objects, and use
insertLabel() to insert llvm.dbg.label intrinsic in LLVM IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45024
Patch by Hsiangkai Wang.
llvm-svn: 331841
At the last LLVM dev meeting we had a debug info for optimized code
BoF session. In that session I presented some graphs that showed how
the quality of the debug info produced by LLVM changed over the last
couple of years. This is a cleaned up version of the patch I used to
collect the this data. It is implemented as an extension of
llvm-dwarfdump, adding a new --statistics option. The intended
use-case is to automatically run this on the debug info produced by,
e.g., our bots, to identify eyebrow-raising changes or regressions
introduced by new transformations that we could act on.
In the current form, two kinds of data are being collected:
- The number of variables that have a debug location versus the number
of variables in total (this takes into account inlined instances of
the same function, so if a variable is completely missing form only
one instance it will be found).
- The PC range covered by variable location descriptions versus the PC
range of all variables' containing lexical scopes.
The output format is versioned and extensible, so I'm looking forward
to both bug fixes and ideas for other data that would be interesting
to track.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36627
llvm-svn: 315101
Kristina Bessonova