We still have access to types via MDNodes directly and the assertion that assumes all accesses to DITypes are accessing the resolved DIType will fire i.e assert(Ty == resolve(Ty.getRef())) One example is the access to DIType via DIArray in SubroutineType. If all elements in the type array are DITypes we can create a DITypeArray and use that for SubroutineType's type array instead. But we currently have unspecified parameter in the type array and it is not a DIType. What are your thoughts? Suggestions are welcome. Is it a good idea to canonicalize file names (i.e dA/B.h should be equivalent to dA/../dA/B.h)? This will reduce the chance of having two DITypes that should be equivalent with equivalent file names. Thanks, Manman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140714/552c0418/attachment.html>
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:> > We still have access to types via MDNodes directly and the assertion that > assumes all accesses to DITypes are accessing the resolved DIType will fire > > i.e assert(Ty == resolve(Ty.getRef())) > > One example is the access to DIType via DIArray in SubroutineType. If all > elements in the type array are DITypes we can create a DITypeArray and use > that for SubroutineType's type array instead. But we currently have > unspecified parameter in the type array and it is not a DIType. >I am going to work on a patch that adds DITypeArray (each element will be DITypeRef, SubroutineType's type array will be DITypeArray) and adds DITrivialType that extends from DIType (unspecified parameter will be DITrivialType). If you have opinions against it, please let me know, Thanks, Manman> What are your thoughts? Suggestions are welcome. > > Is it a good idea to canonicalize file names (i.e dA/B.h should be > equivalent to dA/../dA/B.h)? This will reduce the chance of having two > DITypes that should be equivalent with equivalent file names. > > Thanks, > Manman >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140721/c665c3c4/attachment.html>
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:> > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> We still have access to types via MDNodes directly and the assertion that >> assumes all accesses to DITypes are accessing the resolved DIType will fire >> >> i.e assert(Ty == resolve(Ty.getRef())) >> >> One example is the access to DIType via DIArray in SubroutineType. If all >> elements in the type array are DITypes we can create a DITypeArray and use >> that for SubroutineType's type array instead. But we currently have >> unspecified parameter in the type array and it is not a DIType. > > > I am going to work on a patch that adds DITypeArray (each element will be > DITypeRef, SubroutineType's type array will be DITypeArray) and adds > DITrivialType that extends from DIType (unspecified parameter will be > DITrivialType). > If you have opinions against it, please let me know, >I'm still not sure what problem you're trying to solve here. Can you be more clear?> Thanks, > Manman > >> >> What are your thoughts? Suggestions are welcome. >> >> Is it a good idea to canonicalize file names (i.e dA/B.h should be >> equivalent to dA/../dA/B.h)? This will reduce the chance of having two >> DITypes that should be equivalent with equivalent file names. >>Probably. -eric
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:> > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> We still have access to types via MDNodes directly and the assertion that >> assumes all accesses to DITypes are accessing the resolved DIType will fire >> >> i.e assert(Ty == resolve(Ty.getRef())) >> >> One example is the access to DIType via DIArray in SubroutineType. If all >> elements in the type array are DITypes we can create a DITypeArray and use >> that for SubroutineType's type array instead. But we currently have >> unspecified parameter in the type array and it is not a DIType. > > > I am going to work on a patch that adds DITypeArray (each element will be > DITypeRef, SubroutineType's type array will be DITypeArray) and adds > DITrivialType that extends from DIType (unspecified parameter will be > DITrivialType). > If you have opinions against it, please let me know,We haven't bothered using typed arrays in DebugInfo yet (as you say, we just have DIArray) so I have two thoughts 1) why does this one case need fixing/changing? Is it because we have things that aren't DIDescriptors inside the DIArray? (the strings that refer to types). Given how loosely typed DIDescriptor is (it doesn't check that it's a valid DIDescriptor) I assume this doesn't actually cause a problem, though it's certainly not nice. So we could just leave it as-is, pass DIArray's element to "resolve" (it'd implicitly convert the DIDescriptor back to a raw MDNode*), then perhaps we'd need to make DITypeRef's ctor public so it could be used here. Not suggesting that's ideal, though. 2) If we're going to fix DIArray apparent type safety (it's not safe - just convenient), perhaps we could just template it? (to avoid churn, we could leave DIArray as a typedef of DITypedArray<DIDescriptor> for example, and then have DITypedArray<DITypeRef> which is your DITypeArray (again, provided via typedef)). It's so small though, that I'm not too fussed if we write it out again as you've proposed. - David> > Thanks, > Manman > >> >> What are your thoughts? Suggestions are welcome. >> >> Is it a good idea to canonicalize file names (i.e dA/B.h should be >> equivalent to dA/../dA/B.h)? This will reduce the chance of having two >> DITypes that should be equivalent with equivalent file names. >> >> Thanks, >> Manman > >