[PATCH] D89049: [AIX][XCOFF] print out the traceback info

[James Henderson via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jhenderson added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/tools/llvm-objdump/XCOFF/disassemble-invalid-traceback-table.test:1
+## Test parsing of  invalid xcoff traceback table.
+# REQUIRES: powerpc-registered-target
----------------
I repeat my previous comment. How is this invalid?


================
Comment at: llvm/test/tools/llvm-objdump/XCOFF/disassemble-traceback-table.test:7
+## xcoff-traceback-table.o compiled with IBM XL C/C++ for AIX, V16.1.0
+## compiler command: xlc -o xcoff-traceback-table.o -c foo.c
+## foo.c:
----------------
jhenderson wrote:
> DiggerLin wrote:
> > Xiangling_L wrote:
> > > Should we use xlclang here?
> > yes, of course, we can use xlclang here, but  I think using xlc is ok too.
> See my above comments - add traceback table generation to yaml2obj rather than adding canned binaries that people are unable to update.
Thsi comment is marked as done, but hasn't been addressed as far as I can see?


================
Comment at: llvm/tools/llvm-objdump/XCOFFDump.cpp:127
+  unsigned TabStop = getInstStartColumn(STI) - 1;
+  // Print backtrace table boundary.
+  printRawData(Bytes.slice(Index, 4), Address, OS, STI);
----------------
I assume?


================
Comment at: llvm/tools/llvm-objdump/XCOFFDump.cpp:175
+
+  auto printBytes = [&](uint64_t n) {
+    printRawData(Bytes.slice(Index, n), Address + Index, OS, STI);
----------------
Lambdas are objects, so should be named as such.


================
Comment at: llvm/tools/llvm-objdump/XCOFFDump.cpp:338-339
+    OS << "\t# Except info displacement";
+    // Print another 4 bytes for 64 bit.The displacement(address) is 8 bytes in
+    // 64 bit object file.
+    if (Is64Bit) {
----------------



Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D89049/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D89049