llvm-svn: 169757

llvm-svn: 169756

s/getLowerBoundDefault/getDefaultLowerBound/ for consistency. Also put the more natural check first in the if-then statement.

llvm-svn: 169486

Some languages, e.g. Ada and Pascal, allow you to specify that the array bounds
are different from the default (1 in these cases). If we have a lower bound
that's non-default, then we emit the lower bound. We also calculate the correct
upper bound in those cases.

llvm-svn: 169484

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