[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Supporting macros in LLVM debug info

[Richard Smith via llvm-dev]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:49 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:21 AM, David Blaikie via cfe-dev <
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Aboud, Amjad <amjad.aboud at intel.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I found a way to skip representing macros in AST and create them
>>>> directly in CGDebugInfo through PPCallbacks during preprocessing.
>>>>
>>>> To do that, I needed to extend ASTConsumer interface with this extra
>>>> method:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   /// If the consumer is interested in notifications from Preprocessor,
>>>>
>>>>   /// for example: notifications on macro definitions, etc., it should
>>>> return
>>>>
>>>>   /// a pointer to a PPCallbacks here.
>>>>
>>>>   /// The caller takes ownership on the returned pointer.
>>>>
>>>>   virtual PPCallbacks *CreatePreprocessorCallbacks() { return nullptr;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then the ParseAST can use it to add these preprocessor callbacks, which
>>>> are needed by the AST consumer, to the preprocessor:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   S.getPreprocessor().addPPCallbacks(
>>>>
>>>>       std::unique_ptr<PPCallbacks
>>>> >(Consumer->CreatePreprocessorCallbacks()));
>>>>
>>>
>>> (CreatePreprocessorCallbacks, if that's the path we take, should return
>>> a unique_ptr itself rather than returning a raw ownership-passing pointer,
>>> but that's a minor API detail)
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With this, approach the change in clang to support macros is very small.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree to this approach?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Richard - what do you reckon's the right hook/path to get preprocessor
>>> info through to codegen (& CGDebugInfo in particular). Would a general
>>> purpose hook in the ASTConsumer be appropriate/useful?
>>>
>>
>> ASTConsumer shouldn't know anything about the preprocessor; there's no
>> reason to think, in general, that the AST is being produced by
>> preprocessing and parsing some text.
>>
>
> Hmm, I suppose a fair question then - would it be possible to implement
> debug info for macros when reading ASTs from a serialized file (without a
> preprocessor). Or should we actually go with the original proposal of
> creating AST nodes for the preprocessor events so we can have access to
> them after loading serialized modules & then generating debug info from
> them? Is there some other side table we'd be better off using/creating for
> this task?
>

It would make sense to split the preprocessor into separate layers for
holding the macro / other state information and for actually performing
preprocessing (that is, we'd have a separate "preprocessor AST" containing
just the macro information), similar to the AST / Sema split, but that's a
rather large task. In the mean time, we would need to require people to set
up a preprocessor to deserialize into (even though they're never going to
actually preprocess anything) so that they have somewhere to put the macros
before feeding them to CodeGen. That doesn't seem like a huge imposition.

But the case I was thinking of wasn't actually deserialized ASTs (for which
there usually is some preprocessor state available somewhere), it's cases
like lldb, swig-like tools or clang plugins that synthesize AST nodes out
of thin air. CodeGen should be prepared to generate code from a world where
no preprocessor ever existed, and we shouldn't make the ASTConsumer
interface imply that macros are part of the AST -- we should present them
as an (optional) separate layer.

Perhaps adding a PreprocessorConsumer interface akin to the existing
>> SemaConsumer interface would be a better way to go.
>>
>
>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Amjad
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf
>>>> Of *Aboud, Amjad via llvm-dev
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 05, 2015 16:56
>>>> *To:* David Blaikie
>>>>
>>>> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting macros in LLVM debug info
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Right - I was wondering if CGDebugInfo already implemented
>>>> PPCallbacks or was otherwise being notified of PPCallback related things,
>>>> possibly through a layer or two of indirection.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I checked the approach of skipping representing macros in AST, and
>>>> communicate them directly from Parser to CGDebugInfo.
>>>>
>>>> However, I could not find a way to initialize this communication.
>>>>
>>>> The only interface available through Parser is either Sema (to create
>>>> an AST) or ASTConsumer. While the CGDebugInfo is only available in the
>>>> CodeGenModule, which is accessible from BackendConsumer, that implements
>>>> ASTConsumer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David, skipping the AST will save a lot of code, but I need help
>>>> figuring out how to communicate with the CGDebugInfo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Amjad
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com <dblaikie at gmail.com>]
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2015 18:46
>>>> *To:* Aboud, Amjad
>>>> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting macros in LLVM debug info
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Aboud, Amjad <amjad.aboud at intel.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Do we really need to touch the AST? Or would it be reasonable to wire
>>>> up the CGDebugInfo directly to the PPCallbacks, if it isn't already?
>>>> (perhaps it is already wired up for other reasons?)
>>>>
>>>> This sound as a good idea, I will check that approach.
>>>>
>>>> PPCallbacks is only an interface, has nothing connected to it, but we
>>>> will create a new class, which implement PPCallbacks, for macros.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right - I was wondering if CGDebugInfo already implemented PPCallbacks
>>>> or was otherwise being notified of PPCallback related things, possibly
>>>> through a layer or two of indirection.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So we can connect whatever we want to that class.
>>>>
>>>> The only drawback with this approach, is that we can test the frontend
>>>> using the generated  LLVM IR, i.e. the whole path, instead of having two
>>>> tests, AST for testing the parser, and LLVM IR for testing the Sema.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We don't usually do direct AST tests in Clang for debug info (or for
>>>> many things, really) - we just do source -> llvm IR anyway, so that's
>>>> nothing out of the ordinary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > I wonder if it'd be better to use a parent chain style approach
>>>> (DIMacro has a DIMacroFile it refers to, each DIMacroFile has another one
>>>> that it refers to, up to null)?
>>>> > (does it ever make sense/need to have a DIMacroFile without any
>>>> macros in it? I assume not?)
>>>> First, it seems that GCC does emit MacroFile that has no macros inside
>>>> (I understand that it might not be useful, but I am not sure if we should
>>>> ignore that or not).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that's weird - I'd sort of be inclined to skip it until we know
>>>> what it's useful for.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Second, I assume that you are suggesting the parent chain style instead
>>>> to the current children style, right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correct
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this case, won’t it make the debug emitter code much complicated to
>>>> figure out the DFS tree,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't quite imagine it would be more complicated - we would just be
>>>> building the file parent chain as we go, and keeping the current macro file
>>>> around to be used as the parent to any macros we create.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> which should be emitted for the macros, not mentioning the macro order
>>>> which will be lost?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily, if we kept the macros in order in the list of macros
>>>> attached to the CU, which I imagine we would.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, remember that the command line macros have no DIMacroFile parent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fair - they could have the null parent, potentially.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, if you meant to use the parent chain in addition to the
>>>> children list, then what extra information it will give us?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >Might be good to start with dwarfdump support - seems useful
>>>> regardless of anything else?
>>>>
>>>> I agree, and in fact, I already have this code implemented, will upload
>>>> it for review soon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cool
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Amjad
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com]
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2015 00:32
>>>> *To:* Aboud, Amjad
>>>> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting macros in LLVM debug info
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Aboud, Amjad via llvm-dev <
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to implement macro debug info support in LLVM.
>>>>
>>>> Below you will find 4 parts:
>>>>
>>>> 1.      Background  on what does it mean to debug macros.
>>>>
>>>> 2.      A brief explanation on how to represent macro debug info in
>>>> DWARF 4.0.
>>>>
>>>> 3.      The suggested design.
>>>>
>>>> 4.      A full example: Source -> AST -> LLVM IR -> DWARF.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to skip first two parts if you think you know the background.
>>>>
>>>> Please, let me know if you have any comment or feedback on this
>>>> approach.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Amjad
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *[Background]*
>>>>
>>>> There are two kind of macro definition:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Simple macro definition, e.g.  #define M1 Value1
>>>>
>>>> 2. Function macro definition, e.g. #define M2(x, y)  (x) + (y)
>>>>
>>>> Macro scope starts with the "#define" directive and ends with "#undef"
>>>> directive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GDB supports debugging macros. This means, it can evaluate the macro
>>>> expression for all macros, which have a scope that interleaves with the
>>>> current breakpoint.
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> GDB command: print M2(3, 5)
>>>>
>>>> GDB Result: 8
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GDB can evaluate the macro expression based on the ".debug_macroinfo"
>>>> section (DWARF 4.0).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *[DWARF 4.0 ".debug_macroinfo" section]*
>>>>
>>>> In this section there are 4 kinds of entries
>>>>
>>>> 1.      DW_MACROINFO_define
>>>>
>>>> 2.      DW_MACROINFO_undef
>>>>
>>>> 3.      DW_MACROINFO_start_file
>>>>
>>>> 4.      DW_MACROINFO_end_file
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note: There is a 5th kind of entry for vendor specific macro
>>>> information, that we do not need to support.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The first two entries contain information about the line number where
>>>> the macro is defined/undefined, and a null terminated string, which contain
>>>> the macro name (followed by the replacement value in case of a definition,
>>>> or a list of parameters then the replacement value in case of function
>>>> macro definition).
>>>>
>>>> The third entry contains information about the line where the file was
>>>> included followed by the file id (an offset into the files table in the
>>>> debug line section).
>>>>
>>>> The fourth entry contains nothing, and it just close the previous entry
>>>> of third kind (start_file) .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Macro definition and file including entries must appear at the same
>>>> order as they appear in the source file. Where all macro entries between
>>>> "start_file" and "end_file" entries represent macros appears
>>>> directly/indirectly in the included file.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Special cases:
>>>>
>>>> 1.      The main source file should be the first "start_file" entry in
>>>> the sequence, and should have line number "0".
>>>>
>>>> 2.      Command line/Compiler definitions must also have line number
>>>> "0" but must appear before the first "start_file" entry.
>>>>
>>>> 3.      Command line include files, must also have line number "0" but
>>>> will appear straight after the "start_file" of the main source.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *[Design]*
>>>>
>>>> To support macros the following components need to be modified: Clang,
>>>> LLVM IR, Dwarf Debug emitter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In clang, we need to handle these source directives:
>>>>
>>>> 1.      #define
>>>>
>>>> 2.      #undef
>>>>
>>>> 3.      #include
>>>>
>>>> The idea is to make a use of "PPCallbacks" class, which allows
>>>> preprocessor to notify the parser each time one of the above directives
>>>> occurs.
>>>>
>>>> These are the callbacks that should be implemented:
>>>>
>>>> "MacroDefined", "MacroUndefined", "FileChanged", and
>>>> "InclusionDirective".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AST will be extended to support two new DECL types: "MacroDecl" and
>>>> "FileIncludeDecl".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do we really need to touch the AST? Or would it be reasonable to wire
>>>> up the CGDebugInfo directly to the PPCallbacks, if it isn't already?
>>>> (perhaps it is already wired up for other reasons?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where "FileIncludeDecl" AST might contain other
>>>> "FileIncludeDecl"/"MacroDecl" ASTs.
>>>>
>>>> These two new AST DECLs are not part of TranslationUnitDecl and are
>>>> handled separately (see AST example below).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the LLVM IR, metadata debug info will be extended to support new DIs
>>>> as well:
>>>>
>>>> "DIMacro", "DIFileInclude", and "MacroNode".
>>>>
>>>> The last, is needed as we cannot use DINode as a base class of
>>>> "DIMacro" and DIFileInclude" nodes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DIMacro will contain:
>>>>
>>>> ·        type (definition/undefinition).
>>>>
>>>> ·        line number (interger).
>>>>
>>>> ·        name (null terminated string).
>>>>
>>>> ·        replacement value  (null terminated string - optional).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DIFileMacro will contain:
>>>>
>>>> ·        line number (interger).
>>>>
>>>> ·        file (DIFile).
>>>>
>>>> ·        macro list (MacroNodeArray) - optional.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if it'd be better to use a parent chain style approach
>>>> (DIMacro has a DIMacroFile it refers to, each DIMacroFile has another one
>>>> that it refers to, up to null)?
>>>> (does it ever make sense/need to have a DIMacroFile without any macros
>>>> in it? I assume not?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Might be good to start with dwarfdump support - seems useful regardless
>>>> of anything else?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In addition, the DICompileUnit will contain a new optional field of
>>>> macro list of type (MacroNodeArray).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Finally, I assume that macro support should be disabled by default, and
>>>> there should be a flag to enable this feature. I would say that we should
>>>> introduce a new specific flag, e.g. "-gmacro", that could be used with
>>>> "-g".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *[Example]*
>>>>
>>>> Here is an example that demonstrate the macro support from
>>>> Source->AST->LLVM IR->DWARF.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Source
>>>>
>>>> =========================================================
>>>>
>>>> mainfile.c:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> 1. #define M1 Value1
>>>>
>>>> 2. #include "myfile.h"
>>>>
>>>> 3. #define M2( x , y)   ( (x)    + (y)  * Value2)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> myfile.h:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> 1.
>>>>
>>>> 2.
>>>>
>>>> 3.
>>>>
>>>> 4. #undef M1
>>>>
>>>> 5. #define M1 NewValue1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> myfile2.h:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> 1. #define M4 Value4
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> =========================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Command line:
>>>>
>>>> clang -c -g -gmacro -O0 -DM3=Value3 -include myfile2.h mainfile.c
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AST
>>>>
>>>> =========================================================
>>>>
>>>> MacroDecl 0xd6c5c0 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> __llvm__ defined
>>>>
>>>> MacroDecl 0xd6c618 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> __clang__ defined
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> … <More compiler macros> …
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> MacroDecl 0x11c01b0 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> M3 defined
>>>>
>>>> FileIncludeDecl 0x11c0208 <mainfile.c:1:1> col:1
>>>>
>>>> |-FileIncludeDecl 0x11c0238 <myfile2.h:1:1> col:1
>>>>
>>>> | `-MacroDecl 0x11c0268 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> M4 defined
>>>>
>>>> |-MacroDecl 0x11c02c0 <mainfile.c:1:9> col:9 M1 defined
>>>>
>>>> |-FileIncludeDecl 0x11c0318 <myfile.h:1:1> col:1
>>>>
>>>> | |-MacroDecl 0x11c0348 <line:4:8> col:8 M1 undefined
>>>>
>>>> | `-MacroDecl 0x11c03a0 <line:5:9> col:9 M1 defined
>>>>
>>>> `-MacroDecl 0x11c03f8 <mainfile.c:3:9> col:9 M2 defined
>>>>
>>>> TranslationUnitDecl 0xd6c078 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc>
>>>>
>>>> |-TypedefDecl 0xd6c330 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit
>>>> __int128_t '__int128'
>>>>
>>>> |-TypedefDecl 0xd6c370 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit
>>>> __uint128_t 'unsigned __int128'
>>>>
>>>> |-TypedefDecl 0xd6c3c8 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit
>>>> __builtin_ms_va_list 'char *'
>>>>
>>>> `-TypedefDecl 0xd6c590 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit
>>>> __builtin_va_list 'struct __va_list_tag [1]'
>>>>
>>>> =========================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LLVM IR
>>>>
>>>> =========================================================
>>>>
>>>> target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
>>>>
>>>> target triple = "x86_64-pc-linux"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> !llvm.dbg.cu = !{!0}
>>>>
>>>> !llvm.module.flags = !{!327}
>>>>
>>>> !llvm.ident = !{!328}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> !0 = distinct !DICompileUnit(language: DW_LANG_C99, file: !1, producer:
>>>> "clang version 3.8.0 (trunk 251321)", isOptimized: false, runtimeVersion:
>>>> 0, emissionKind: 1, enums: !2, macros: !3)
>>>>
>>>> !1 = !DIFile(filename: "mainfile.c", directory: "/")
>>>>
>>>> !2 = !{}
>>>>
>>>> !3 = !{!4, !5, … <More compiler macros> … , !312, !313}
>>>>
>>>> !4 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "__llvm__", value:
>>>> !"1")
>>>>
>>>> !5 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "__clang__", value:
>>>> !"1")
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> … <More compiler macros> …
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> !312 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "M3", value:
>>>> !"Value3")
>>>>
>>>> !313 = !DIFileInclude(file: !314, nodes: !315)
>>>>
>>>> !314 = !DIFile(filename: "mainfile.c", directory: "/")
>>>>
>>>> !315 = !{!316, !320, !321, !326}
>>>>
>>>> !316 = !DIFileInclude(file: !317, nodes: !318)
>>>>
>>>> !317 = !DIFile(filename: "myfile2.h", directory: "/")
>>>>
>>>> !318 = !{!319}
>>>>
>>>> !319 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "M4", value:
>>>> !"Value4")
>>>>
>>>> !320 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "M1", line: 1,
>>>> value: !"Value1")
>>>>
>>>> !321 = !DIFileInclude(line: 2, file: !322, nodes: !323)
>>>>
>>>> !322 = !DIFile(filename: "myfile.h", directory: "/")
>>>>
>>>> !323 = !{!324, !325}
>>>>
>>>> !324 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_undef, name: "M1", line: 4)
>>>>
>>>> !325 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "M1", line: 5,
>>>> value: !"NewValue1")
>>>>
>>>> !326 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "M2(x,y)", line:
>>>> 3, value: !"( (x) + (y) * Value2)")
>>>>
>>>> !327 = !{i32 2, !"Debug Info Version", i32 3}
>>>>
>>>> !328 = !{!"clang version 3.8.0 (trunk 251321)"}
>>>>
>>>> =========================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DWARF
>>>>
>>>> =========================================================
>>>>
>>>> Command line: llvm-dwarfdump.exe -debug-dump=macro mainfile.o
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> mainfile3.o:  file format ELF64-x86-64
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .debug_macinfo contents:
>>>>
>>>> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 0 macro: __llvm__ 1
>>>>
>>>> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 0 macro: __clang__ 1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> … <More compiler macros> …
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 0 macro: M3 Value3
>>>>
>>>> DW_MACINFO_start_file - lineno: 0 filenum: 1
>>>>
>>>>   DW_MACINFO_start_file - lineno: 0 filenum: 2
>>>>
>>>>     DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 0 macro: M4 Value4
>>>>
>>>>   DW_MACINFO_end_file
>>>>
>>>>   DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 1 macro: M1 Value1
>>>>
>>>>   DW_MACINFO_start_file - lineno: 2 filenum: 3
>>>>
>>>>     DW_MACINFO_undef - lineno: 4 macro: M1
>>>>
>>>>     DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 5 macro: M1 NewValue1
>>>>
>>>>   DW_MACINFO_end_file
>>>>
>>>>   DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 3 macro: M2(x,y) ( (x) + (y) * Value2)
>>>>
>>>> DW_MACINFO_end_file
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Command line: llvm-dwarfdump.exe -debug-dump=line mainfile.o
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> .debug_line contents:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> … <Other line table Info> …
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 Dir  Mod Time   File Len   File Name
>>>>
>>>>                 ---- ---------- ---------- ---------------------------
>>>>
>>>> file_names[  1]    1 0x00000000 0x00000000 mainfile.c
>>>>
>>>> file_names[  2]    1 0x00000000 0x00000000 myfile2.h
>>>>
>>>> file_names[  3]    1 0x00000000 0x00000000 myfile.h
>>>>
>>>> =========================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
>>>> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
>>>> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
>>>> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
>>>> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
>>>> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
>>>> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
>>>> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
>>>> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
>>>> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
>>>> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
>>>> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
>>>> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151113/28496b66/attachment-0001.html>