This patch renumbers the metadata nodes in debug info testcases after
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26769. This is a separate patch because it
causes so much churn. This was implemented with a python script that
pipes the testcases through llvm-as - | llvm-dis - and then goes
through the original and new output side-by side to insert all
comments at a close-enough location.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27765
llvm-svn: 290292
This patch implements PR31013 by introducing a
DIGlobalVariableExpression that holds a pair of DIGlobalVariable and
DIExpression.
Currently, DIGlobalVariables holds a DIExpression. This is not the
best way to model this:
(1) The DIGlobalVariable should describe the source level variable,
not how to get to its location.
(2) It makes it unsafe/hard to update the expressions when we call
replaceExpression on the DIGLobalVariable.
(3) It makes it impossible to represent a global variable that is in
more than one location (e.g., a variable with multiple
DW_OP_LLVM_fragment-s). We also moved away from attaching the
DIExpression to DILocalVariable for the same reasons.
This reapplies r289902 with additional testcase upgrades and a change
to the Bitcode record for DIGlobalVariable, that makes upgrading the
old format unambiguous also for variables without DIExpressions.
<rdar://problem/29250149>
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31013
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26769
llvm-svn: 290153
This reverts commit 289920 (again).
I forgot to implement a Bitcode upgrade for the case where a DIGlobalVariable
has not DIExpression. Unfortunately it is not possible to safely upgrade
these variables without adding a flag to the bitcode record indicating which
version they are.
My plan of record is to roll the planned follow-up patch that adds a
unit: field to DIGlobalVariable into this patch before recomitting.
This way we only need one Bitcode upgrade for both changes (with a
version flag in the bitcode record to safely distinguish the record
formats).
Sorry for the churn!
llvm-svn: 289982
This patch implements PR31013 by introducing a
DIGlobalVariableExpression that holds a pair of DIGlobalVariable and
DIExpression.
Currently, DIGlobalVariables holds a DIExpression. This is not the
best way to model this:
(1) The DIGlobalVariable should describe the source level variable,
not how to get to its location.
(2) It makes it unsafe/hard to update the expressions when we call
replaceExpression on the DIGLobalVariable.
(3) It makes it impossible to represent a global variable that is in
more than one location (e.g., a variable with multiple
DW_OP_LLVM_fragment-s). We also moved away from attaching the
DIExpression to DILocalVariable for the same reasons.
This reapplies r289902 with additional testcase upgrades.
<rdar://problem/29250149>
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31013
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26769
llvm-svn: 289920
This patch implements PR31013 by introducing a
DIGlobalVariableExpression that holds a pair of DIGlobalVariable and
DIExpression.
Currently, DIGlobalVariables holds a DIExpression. This is not the
best way to model this:
(1) The DIGlobalVariable should describe the source level variable,
not how to get to its location.
(2) It makes it unsafe/hard to update the expressions when we call
replaceExpression on the DIGLobalVariable.
(3) It makes it impossible to represent a global variable that is in
more than one location (e.g., a variable with multiple
DW_OP_LLVM_fragment-s). We also moved away from attaching the
DIExpression to DILocalVariable for the same reasons.
<rdar://problem/29250149>
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31013
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26769
llvm-svn: 289902
if it is more specific than the one in its DW_AT_specification.
If a static member is an array, the translation unit containing the
member definition may have a more specific type (including its length)
than TUs only seeing the class declaration. This patch adds a
DW_AT_type to the member's DW_TAG_variable in addition to the
DW_AT_specification in these cases. The member type in the
DW_AT_specification still shows the more generic type (without the
length) to avoid defeating type uniquing.
The DWARF standard discourages “duplicating” a DW_AT_type in a member
variable definition but doesn’t explicitly forbid it. Having the more
specific type (with the array length) available is what allows the
debugger to print the contents of a static array member variable.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26368
rdar://problem/28706946
llvm-svn: 286302
