Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Feb 13 2018, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > The patch I posted last night should work around this problem, in that > it will disable LVU by default if the assembler doesn't support .loc > views, and then you won't get this error any more, unless you explicitly > ask for location

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Feb 12, 2018, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Feb 12 2018, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Feb 11, 2018, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> >>> On Feb 09 2018, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> + if (list_head->vl_symbol &&

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Feb 12 2018, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Feb 11, 2018, Andreas Schwab wrote: > >> On Feb 09 2018, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >>> + if (list_head->vl_symbol && dwarf2out_locviews_in_attribute ()) >>> +{ >>> +

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Feb 11, 2018, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Feb 09 2018, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> + if (list_head->vl_symbol && dwarf2out_locviews_in_attribute ()) >> +{ >> + ASM_OUTPUT_LABEL (asm_out_file, list_head->vl_symbol); > That needs to use

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Feb 11, 2018, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> + if (list_head->vl_symbol && dwarf2out_locviews_in_attribute ()) >> +{ >> + ASM_OUTPUT_LABEL (asm_out_file, list_head->vl_symbol); > That needs to use ASM_OUTPUT_DEBUG_LABEL. There's another use of the same macro that

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Feb 09 2018, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > @@ -9681,34 +9978,85 @@ gen_llsym (dw_loc_list_ref list) > static void > output_loc_list (dw_loc_list_ref list_head) > { > + int vcount = 0, lcount = 0; > + >if (list_head->emitted) > return; >list_head->emitted = true;

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Feb 09 2018, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > [LVU] Introduce location views > > This patch introduces an option to enable the generation of location > views along with location lists. The exact format depends on the > DWARF version: it can be a separate attribute

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Feb 8, 2018, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Feb 7, 2018, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >>> OK, that makes sense. But I'm still uncomfortable with choosing an >>> existing opcode for

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Feb 8, 2018, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 02/07/2018 02:36 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> +/* Output symbol LAB1 as an unsigned LEB128 quantity. */ > Let's mention here that the value of LAB1 must be an assemble-time > constant (such as a view counter), since we can't have

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On 02/07/2018 02:36 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: +/* Output symbol LAB1 as an unsigned LEB128 quantity. */ Let's mention here that the value of LAB1 must be an assemble-time constant (such as a view counter), since we can't have LEB128 relocations. With that, the patch looks OK. Jason

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Feb 7, 2018, Jason Merrill wrote: > >> OK, that makes sense. But I'm still uncomfortable with choosing an >> existing opcode for that purpose, which previously would have been >> chosen just for

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Feb 7, 2018, Jason Merrill wrote: > OK, that makes sense. But I'm still uncomfortable with choosing an > existing opcode for that purpose, which previously would have been > chosen just for reasons of encoding complexity and size. Well, there's a good reason we didn't

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On 02/06/2018 11:02 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Feb 6, 2018, Jason Merrill wrote: On 12/11/2017 09:52 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: Why do we need to use a non-zero view identifier for a zero view? Why can't we always use 0 instead of the bitmap? We assign view ids

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Jan 25, 2018, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jan 24, 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:52:18AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> +DW_LLE_GNU_view_pair = 0x09, >>> +#define DW_LLE_view_pair DW_LLE_GNU_view_pair >> This looks wrong.

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

Here's the updated version of the LVU patch, integrating changes requested or proposed by yourself and by Jakub. for include/ChangeLog * dwarf2.def (DW_AT_GNU_locviews): New. * dwarf2.h (enum dwarf_location_list_entry_type): Add DW_LLE_GNU_view_pair.

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

Here's an incremental patch with the changes I made in response to your requests. I'll post the complete updated patch momentarily. diff --git a/gcc/common.opt b/gcc/common.opt index 55d9cdd714ff..7e024fdab124 100644 --- a/gcc/common.opt +++ b/gcc/common.opt @@ -2957,9 +2957,12 @@ Common Driver

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Jan 30, 2018, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> But it is my understanding that both of the following are correct: >> >> return (verylongcondition >> && otherlongcondition__); >> >> return

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Feb 6, 2018, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 12/11/2017 09:52 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> +/* output symbol LAB1 as an unsigned LEB128 quantity. */ >> + >> +void >> +dw2_asm_output_symname_uleb128 (const char *lab1 ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, >> +const char

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On 12/11/2017 09:52 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: +/* output symbol LAB1 as an unsigned LEB128 quantity. */ + +void +dw2_asm_output_symname_uleb128 (const char *lab1 ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED, + const char *comment, ...) I'm having trouble understanding the use of symbols

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

Alexandre Oliva writes: > On Jan 26, 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> Having to tweak debug info consumers so that they treat DW_LLE_* of 9 >> one way for .debug_loclist of version 5 and another way for .debug_loclist >> of version 6 isn't a good idea. > >

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Jan 26, 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Having to tweak debug info consumers so that they treat DW_LLE_* of 9 > one way for .debug_loclist of version 5 and another way for .debug_loclist > of version 6 isn't a good idea. Maybe we don't have to do that. The reason I

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 05:58:37PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > This looks wrong. The proposal has not been accepted yet, so you > > really can't know if DW_LLE_view_pair will be like that or whether it > > will have value of 9. Unfortunately, the DWARF standard doesn't specify a > > vendor

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Jan 24, 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:52:18AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> --- a/include/dwarf2.h >> +++ b/include/dwarf2.h >> @@ -298,6 +298,14 @@ enum dwarf_location_list_entry_type >> DW_LLE_start_end = 0x07, >> DW_LLE_start_length = 0x08, >>

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:52:18AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > --- a/include/dwarf2.h > +++ b/include/dwarf2.h > @@ -298,6 +298,14 @@ enum dwarf_location_list_entry_type > DW_LLE_start_end = 0x07, > DW_LLE_start_length = 0x08, > > +/* >

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Dec 11, 2017, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/09/2017 07:34 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> This patch introduces an option to enable the generation of location >> views along with location lists. The exact format depends on the >> void >> +dw2_asm_output_symname_uleb128 (const char

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On 11/09/2017 07:34 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > This patch introduces an option to enable the generation of location > views along with location lists. The exact format depends on the > DWARF version: it can be a separate attribute (DW_AT_GNU_locviews) or > (DW_LLE_view_pair) entries in DWARF5+

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Nov 13, 2017, Richard Biener wrote: > What does final.c need langhooks for? Thanks for catching this. At some point I had a check on whether there could be being stmt markers emitted by the language, but that's long gone, in part because of LTO; that's now

Re: [SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 3:34 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > This patch introduces an option to enable the generation of location > views along with location lists. The exact format depends on the > DWARF version: it can be a separate attribute (DW_AT_GNU_locviews) or >

[SFN+LVU+IEPM v4 7/9] [LVU] Introduce location views

This patch introduces an option to enable the generation of location views along with location lists. The exact format depends on the DWARF version: it can be a separate attribute (DW_AT_GNU_locviews) or (DW_LLE_view_pair) entries in DWARF5+ loclists. Line number tables are also affected. If