[PATCH] D76878: Implement new DW_OP_LLVM_* operations

Fri Mar 27 08:45:27 PDT 2020

aprantl added inline comments.

================
Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/BinaryFormat/Dwarf.def:670
+// FIXME: These collide with some HP and PGI vendor extensions.
+HANDLE_DW_OP(0xe1, LLVM_form_aspace_address, 4, LLVM)
+HANDLE_DW_OP(0xe2, LLVM_push_lane, 4, LLVM)
----------------
djtodoro wrote:
> Should the Vendor be AMD (or AMDGPU) instead of LLVM? Or this is only LLVM related.
> 
> What about other tools, such as GDB, do they have the support for this?
According to libdwarf these numbers are already taken by HP extensions. I don't know how much this practically matters, but it would be good if we imported all the various vendor extension ranges from libdwarf and binutils...

================
Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/BinaryFormat/Dwarf.def:670
+// FIXME: These collide with some HP and PGI vendor extensions.
+HANDLE_DW_OP(0xe1, LLVM_form_aspace_address, 4, LLVM)
+HANDLE_DW_OP(0xe2, LLVM_push_lane, 4, LLVM)
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> djtodoro wrote:
> > Should the Vendor be AMD (or AMDGPU) instead of LLVM? Or this is only LLVM related.
> > 
> > What about other tools, such as GDB, do they have the support for this?
> According to libdwarf these numbers are already taken by HP extensions. I don't know how much this practically matters, but it would be good if we imported all the various vendor extension ranges from libdwarf and binutils...
> Should the Vendor be AMD (or AMDGPU) instead of LLVM? Or this is only LLVM related.

If the extensions are only useful for AMD hardware then that would be appropriate. If they are generally useful the LLVM vendor might make more sense.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D76878/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D76878