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
The fix is to avoid invalidating our insertion point in
replaceDbgDeclare:
Builder.insertDeclare(NewAddress, DIVar, DIExpr, Loc, InsertBefore);
+ if (DII == InsertBefore)
+ InsertBefore = &*std::next(InsertBefore->getIterator());
DII->eraseFromParent();
I had to write a unit tests for this instead of a lit test because the
use list order matters in order to trigger the bug.
The reduced C test case for this was:
void useit(int*);
static inline void inlineme() {
int x[2];
useit(x);
}
void f() {
inlineme();
inlineme();
}
llvm-svn: 313905
.. as well as the two subsequent changes r313826 and r313875.
This leads to segfaults in combination with ASAN. Will forward repro
instructions to the original author (rnk).
llvm-svn: 313876
Summary:
There already was code that tried to remove the dbg.declare, but that code
was placed after we had called
I->replaceAllUsesWith(UndefValue::get(I->getType()));
on the alloca, so when we searched for the relevant dbg.declare, we
couldn't find it.
Now we do the search before we call RAUW so there is a chance to find it.
An existing testcase needed update due to this. Two dbg.declare with undef
were removed and then suddenly one of the two CHECKS failed.
Before this patch we got
call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata i24* undef, metadata !14, metadata !DIExpression(DW_OP_LLVM_fragment, 32, 24)), !dbg !15
call void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata %struct.prog_src_register* undef, metadata !14, metadata !DIExpression()), !dbg !15
call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata i32 0, metadata !14, metadata !DIExpression(DW_OP_LLVM_fragment, 0, 32)), !dbg !15
call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata i32 0, metadata !14, metadata !DIExpression(DW_OP_LLVM_fragment, 32, 24)), !dbg !15
and with it we get
call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata i32 0, metadata !14, metadata !DIExpression(DW_OP_LLVM_fragment, 0, 32)), !dbg !15
call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata i32 0, metadata !14, metadata !DIExpression(DW_OP_LLVM_fragment, 32, 24)), !dbg !15
However, the CHECKs in the testcase checked things in a silly order, so
they only passed since they found things in the first dbg.declare. Now
we changed the order of the checks and the test passes.
Reviewers: rnk
Reviewed By: rnk
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37900
llvm-svn: 313875
Shiva Chen