llvm-svn: 169315

The count attribute is more accurate with regards to the size of an array. It
also obviates the upper bound attribute in the subrange. We can also better
handle an unbound array by setting the count to -1 instead of the lower bound to
1 and upper bound to 0.

llvm-svn: 169312

This reapplies the fix for PR13303 now with more justification. Based on my
execution of the GDB 7.5 test suite this results in:

expected passes: 16101 -> 20890 (+30%)
unexpected failures: 4826 -> 637 (-77%)

There are 23 checks that used to pass and now fail. They are all in
gdb.reverse. Investigating a few looks like they were accidentally passing
due to extra breakpoints being set by this bug. They're generally due to the
difference in end location between gcc and clang, the test suite is trying to
set breakpoints on the closing '}' that clang doesn't associate with any
instructions.

llvm-svn: 169304

missed in the first pass because the script didn't yet handle include
guards.

Note that the script is now able to handle all of these headers without
manual edits. =]

llvm-svn: 169224

The count field is necessary because there isn't a difference between the 'lo'
and 'hi' attributes for a one-element array and a zero-element array. When the
count is '0', we know that this is a zero-element array. When it's >=1, then
it's a normal constant sized array. When it's -1, then the array is unbounded.

llvm-svn: 169218

Thanks Eric for the review.

llvm-svn: 169142

Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.

Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]

llvm-svn: 169131

part of the compile unit CU and start separating out information into
the various sections that will be pulled out later.

WIP.

llvm-svn: 169061

llvm-svn: 168952

the coding standard would like.

llvm-svn: 168737

llvm-svn: 168736

argument.  Instead, use a pair of .local and .comm directives.

This avoids spurious differences between binaries built by the
integrated assembler vs. those built by the external assembler,
since the external assembler may impose alignment requirements
on .lcomm symbols where the integrated assembler does not.

llvm-svn: 168704

and O0 + debug codegen.

llvm-svn: 168680

llvm-svn: 168644

add a TODO for starting.

llvm-svn: 168643

llvm-svn: 168638

llvm-svn: 168637

llvm-svn: 168481

llvm-svn: 168402

around.

llvm-svn: 168401

llvm-svn: 168400

llvm-svn: 168399

llvm-svn: 168398

everything else underneath.

llvm-svn: 168395

llvm-svn: 168387

llvm-svn: 168384

llvm-svn: 168383

llvm-svn: 168338

llvm-svn: 168337

the zero GV check inside, so we won't forget it at the caller side.

llvm-svn: 168328

It turned out that ARM wants different layout of type infos.
This is yet another patch in attempt to fix PR7187 

llvm-svn: 168325

depending on them being emitted before the text and/or data
sections and testing didn't uncover any.

llvm-svn: 168321

eh table and handler data if there are no landing pads in the function.
Patch by Logan Chien with some cleanups from me.

llvm-svn: 167945

Do some cleanup of the code while here.

Inspired by patch by Logan Chien!

llvm-svn: 167904

temporarily as it is breaking the gdb bots.

This reverts commit r167806/e7ff4c14b157746b3e0228d2dce9f70712d1c126.

llvm-svn: 167886

If we have a type 'int a[1]' and a type 'int b[0]', the generated DWARF is the
same for both of them because we use the 'upper_bound' attribute. Instead use
the 'count' attrbute, which gives the correct number of elements in the array.
<rdar://problem/12566646>

llvm-svn: 167806

llvm-svn: 167765

llvm-svn: 167525

updating an abstract DIE or not. If we are, then we use that. Its children will
be added on later, as well as the object pointer attribute. Otherwise, this
function may be called with a concrete DIE twice and adding the children and
object pointer attribute to it twice.
<rdar://problem/12401423&12600340>

llvm-svn: 167524

r165941: Resubmit the changes to llvm core to update the functions to
         support different pointer sizes on a per address space basis.

Despite this commit log, this change primarily changed stuff outside of
VMCore, and those changes do not carry any tests for correctness (or
even plausibility), and we have consistently found questionable or flat
out incorrect cases in these changes. Most of them are probably correct,
but we need to devise a system that makes it more clear when we have
handled the address space concerns correctly, and ideally each pass that
gets updated would receive an accompanying test case that exercises that
pass specificaly w.r.t. alternate address spaces.

However, from this commit, I have retained the new C API entry points.
Those were an orthogonal change that probably should have been split
apart, but they seem entirely good.

In several places the changes were very obvious cleanups with no actual
multiple address space code added; these I have not reverted when
I spotted them.

In a few other places there were merge conflicts due to a cleaner
solution being implemented later, often not using address spaces at all.
In those cases, I've preserved the new code which isn't address space
dependent.

This is part of my ongoing effort to clean out the partial address space
code which carries high risk and low test coverage, and not likely to be
finished before the 3.2 release looms closer. Duncan and I would both
like to see the above issues addressed before we return to these
changes.

llvm-svn: 167222