- User Since
- Jun 10 2016, 1:55 AM (162 w, 3 d)
Fri, Jul 12
I just want to add that I was a bit hesitant about generalizing the removal as I think it can be quite hard to tell when call site information has been removed, so I thought it would be better to have asserts trigger for each individual case, so that we can detect and assess what to do there, rather than dropping the information silently at the risk of false negatives.
Wed, Jul 10
Thanks a lot for your work with this patch series! It seems very useful.
Tue, Jul 9
Thanks a lot for putting the patch together so fast!
The tests introduced in this commit currently fail when running UBSan, due to invoking getRegInfo() with RegInfo being null:
Mon, Jul 8
Fri, Jul 5
Thu, Jul 4
Tue, Jul 2
Jun 13 2019
Jun 7 2019
Jun 5 2019
Have you measured what the effect the emission of entry value locations has on the "scope bytes covered" statistics? I guess that it can increase quite a bit (especially later if we start describing non-parameter variables using parameter entry values)? If so, if the caller(s) do not have call site information, it will still not be able to print the variable. Would it make sense, and would it be possible, to introduce a "scope bytes covered without entry values" statistic, or some other statistic, which helps you assess how large part of the locations that rely on entry values?
Jun 3 2019
May 28 2019
Add a comment to the query function (undef debug values are mentioned in SourceLevelDebugging.rst, but I did not find any central explanations of such debug values in the code base).
May 27 2019
Address comments (add MachineInstr:isUndefDebugValue query function)
Thanks a lot! This "location list -> single location description" detection seems more robust, and should help us moving towards supporting rewrites of single-entry location lists containing fragments also.
May 24 2019
Update test cases after review comments.
May 23 2019
May 22 2019
Adding a comment about another hand-written example.
May 20 2019
May 15 2019
May 7 2019
(Adding Jeremy as reviewer as he has also been working in this area recently.)
May 6 2019
May 2 2019
Apr 30 2019
I cherry-picked the patches on top of r359425, and tried out some examples. Doing that, I encountered a case where entry values are not inserted with this patch.
Apr 29 2019
(A minor comment, which is not related to the code changes themselves, is that this should be a parent revision to D58033, and not vice-versa as it is now.)
Apr 26 2019
Apr 25 2019
Apr 10 2019
Hi! One of the tests was missing "REQUIRES: asserts", so it failed on a non-assert build. I took the liberty to add that to the test in r358057. I hope that was okay!
Apr 9 2019
Slight adjustment: Add an isEnded() query function rather than using getEnd(). An isEnded() function is added in the follow-up patch D59941, so we can avoid unnecessary diffs in that patch by adding such a function here also.
Address review comments.
Rebase, and add Doxygen comment.
Apr 8 2019
Apr 5 2019
Thanks for the review! Just so that I don't misunderstand something; is the LGTM specifically for the changes in this patch, or does that imply the entire patch series?
Apr 3 2019
Address review comments.
Apr 2 2019
Rebase after update of D59941.
Mar 28 2019
This patch depends on four preceding refactoring commits. I avoided adding reviewers to two of them (I should perhaps have done the same for the other two) to avoid spamming all of you (who probably deals with enough revisions as it is), but they are up for review.