Assert that `MDNode::isResolved()`. While in theory the `Verifier`
should catch this, it doesn't descend into all debug info, and the
`DebugInfoVerifier` doesn't call into the `Verifier`. Besides, this
helps to catch bugs when `-disable-verify=true`.
Note that I haven't come across a place where this fails with clang
today, so no testcase.
llvm-svn: 232442
This happened to be fairly easy to support backwards compatibility based
on the number of operands (old format had an even number, new format has
one more operand so an odd number).
test/Bitcode/old-aliases.ll already appears to test old gep operators
(if I remove the backwards compatibility in the BitcodeReader, this and
another test fail) so I'm not adding extra test coverage here.
llvm-svn: 232216
Like r230414, add bitcode support including backwards compatibility, for
an explicit type parameter to GEP.
At the suggestion of Duncan I tried coalescing the two older bitcodes into a
single new bitcode, though I did hit a wrinkle: I couldn't figure out how to
create an explicit abbreviation for a record with a variable number of
arguments (the indicies to the gep). This means the discriminator between
inbounds and non-inbounds gep is a full variable-length field I believe? Is my
understanding correct? Is there a way to create such an abbreviation? Should I
just use two bitcodes as before?
Reviewers: dexonsmith
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7736
llvm-svn: 230415
Summary:
I've taken my best guess at this, but I've cargo culted in places & so
explanations/corrections would be great.
This seems to pass all the tests (check-all, covering clang and llvm) so I
believe that pretty well exercises both the backwards compatibility and common
(same version) compatibility given the number of checked in bitcode files we
already have. Is that a reasonable approach to testing here? Would some more
explicit tests be desired?
1) is this the right way to do back-compat in this case (looking at the number
of entries in the bitcode record to disambiguate between the old schema and
the new?)
2) I don't quite understand the logarithm logic to choose the encoding type of
the type parameter in the abbreviation description, but I found another
instruction doing the same thing & it seems to work. Is that the right
approach?
Reviewers: dexonsmith
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7655
llvm-svn: 230414
When writing the bitcode serialization for the new debug info hierarchy,
I assumed two fields would never be null.
Drop that assumption, since it's brittle (and crashes the
`BitcodeWriter` if wrong), and is a check better left for the verifier
anyway. (No need for a bitcode upgrade here, since the new hierarchy is
still not in place.)
The fields in question are `MDCompileUnit::getFile()` and
`MDDerivedType::getBaseType()`, the latter of which isn't null in
test/Transforms/Mem2Reg/ConvertDebugInfo2.ll (see !14, a pointer to
nothing). While the testcase might have bitrotted, there's no reason
for the bitcode format to rely on non-null for metadata operands.
This also fixes a bug in `AsmWriter` where if the `file:` is null it
isn't emitted (caught by the double-round trip in the testcase I'm
adding) -- this is a required field in `LLParser`.
I'll circle back to ConvertDebugInfo2. Once the specialized nodes are
in place, I'll be trying to turn the debug info verifier back on by
default (in the newer module pass form committed r206300) and throwing
more logic in there. If the testcase has bitrotted (as opposed to me
not understanding the schema correctly) I'll fix it then.
llvm-svn: 229960
Follow-up to r229740, which removed `DITemplate*::getContext()` after my
upgrade script revealed that scopes are always `nullptr` for template
parameters. This is the other shoe: drop `scope:` from
`MDTemplateParameter` and its two subclasses. (Note: a bitcode upgrade
would be pointless, since the hierarchy hasn't been moved into place.)
llvm-svn: 229791
Add specialized debug info metadata nodes that match the `DIDescriptor`
wrappers (used by `DIBuilder`) closely. Assembly and bitcode support to
follow soon (it'll mostly just be obvious), but this sketches in today's
schema. This is the first big commit (well, the only *big* one aside
from the testcase changes that'll come when I move this into place) for
PR22464.
I've marked a bunch of obvious changes as `TODO`s in the source; I plan
to make those changes promptly after this hierarchy is moved underneath
`DIDescriptor`, but for now I'm aiming mostly to match the status quo.
llvm-svn: 228640
Move debug-info-centred `Metadata` subclasses into their own
header/source file. A couple of private template functions are needed
from both `Metadata.cpp` and `DebugInfoMetadata.cpp`, so I've moved them
to `lib/IR/MetadataImpl.h`.
llvm-svn: 227835
These things are potentially used for non-DWARF data (see the discussion
in PR22235), so take the `Dwarf` out of the name. Since the new name
gives fewer clues, update the doxygen to properly describe what they
are.
llvm-svn: 226874
No change in this commit, but clang was changed to also produce trivial comdats when
needed.
Original message:
Don't create new comdats in CodeGen.
This patch stops the implicit creation of comdats during codegen.
Clang now sets the comdat explicitly when it is required. With this patch clang and gcc
now produce the same result in pr19848.
llvm-svn: 226467
This reverts commit r226173, adding r226038 back.
No change in this commit, but clang was changed to also produce trivial comdats for
costructors, destructors and vtables when needed.
Original message:
Don't create new comdats in CodeGen.
This patch stops the implicit creation of comdats during codegen.
Clang now sets the comdat explicitly when it is required. With this patch clang and gcc
now produce the same result in pr19848.
llvm-svn: 226242
This patch stops the implicit creation of comdats during codegen.
Clang now sets the comdat explicitly when it is required. With this patch clang and gcc
now produce the same result in pr19848.
llvm-svn: 226038
This adds assembly and bitcode support for `MDLocation`. The assembly
side is rather big, since this is the first `MDNode` subclass (that
isn't `MDTuple`). Part of PR21433.
(If you're wondering where the mountains of testcase updates are, we
don't need them until I update `DILocation` and `DebugLoc` to actually
use this class.)
llvm-svn: 225830
Refactor logic so that we know up-front whether to open a block and
whether we need an MDString abbreviation.
This is almost NFC, but will start emitting `MDString` abbreviations
when the first record is not an `MDString`.
llvm-svn: 225712
This reverts commit r225498 (but leaves r225499, which was a worthy
cleanup).
My plan was to change `DEBUG_LOC` to store the `MDNode` directly rather
than its operands (patch was to go out this morning), but on reflection
it's not clear that it's strictly better. (I had missed that the
current code is unlikely to emit the `MDNode` at all.)
Conflicts:
lib/Bitcode/Reader/BitcodeReader.cpp (due to r225499)
llvm-svn: 225531
Propagate whether `MDNode`s are 'distinct' through the other types of IR
(assembly and bitcode). This adds the `distinct` keyword to assembly.
Currently, no one actually calls `MDNode::getDistinct()`, so these nodes
only get created for:
- self-references, which are never uniqued, and
- nodes whose operands are replaced that hit a uniquing collision.
The concept of distinct nodes is still not quite first-class, since
distinct-ness doesn't yet survive across `MapMetadata()`.
Part of PR22111.
llvm-svn: 225474
