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
Greg Clayton