llvm dev - Oct 2015 - [cfe-dev] RFC: CodeView debug info emission in Clang/LLVM

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Dave Bartolomeo via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Proposed Design
> > How Debug Info is Generated
> > The CodeView type records for a compilation unit will be generated by
> the front-end for the source language (Clang, in the case of C and C++).
> The front-end has access to the full type system and AST of the language,
> which is necessary to generate accurate debug type info. The type records
> will be represented as metadata in the LLVM IR, similar to how DWARF debug
> info is represented. I’ll cover the actual representation in a bit more
> detail below.
> > The LLVM back-end will be responsible for emitting the CodeView type
> records from the IR into the output .obj file. Since the type records will
> already be in the correct format, this is essentially just a copy. No
> inspection of the type records is necessary within LLVM. The back-end will
> also be responsible for generating CodeView symbol records, line numbers,
> and source file info for any functions and data defined in the compilation
> unit. The back-end is the logical place to do this because only the
> back-end knows the code addresses, data addresses, and stack frame layouts.
>
> Thanks for proposing this.
>
> How different are the type records from the type information we currently
> have in LLVM's DIType hierarchy? Would it be feasible to move the logic
for
> generating type records from LLVM metadata into the backend? This way a
> frontend could be agnostic about the debug information format.
>
I think that this really is the path we want to follow.  If the current
metadata we emit is insufficient, we should augment it with additional
information sufficient to generate the necessary data in the backend.  The
same annotations would then be able able to generate one OR both debug info
formats.

> -- adrian
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>


-- 
Saleem Abdulrasool
compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151029/dddb3d87/attachment.html>

That's great to hear the great news. I am looking for it for a long time.

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Dave Bartolomeo via llvm-dev
>> > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Proposed Design
>> > How Debug Info is Generated
>> > The CodeView type records for a compilation unit will be generated
by
>> > the front-end for the source language (Clang, in the case of C and
C++). The
>> > front-end has access to the full type system and AST of the
language, which
>> > is necessary to generate accurate debug type info. The type
records will be
>> > represented as metadata in the LLVM IR, similar to how DWARF debug
info is
>> > represented. I’ll cover the actual representation in a bit more
detail
>> > below.
>> > The LLVM back-end will be responsible for emitting the CodeView
type
>> > records from the IR into the output .obj file. Since the type
records will
>> > already be in the correct format, this is essentially just a copy.
No
>> > inspection of the type records is necessary within LLVM. The
back-end will
>> > also be responsible for generating CodeView symbol records, line
numbers,
>> > and source file info for any functions and data defined in the
compilation
>> > unit. The back-end is the logical place to do this because only
the back-end
>> > knows the code addresses, data addresses, and stack frame layouts.
>>
>> Thanks for proposing this.
>>
>> How different are the type records from the type information we
currently
>> have in LLVM's DIType hierarchy? Would it be feasible to move the
logic for
>> generating type records from LLVM metadata into the backend? This way a
>> frontend could be agnostic about the debug information format.
>
>
> I think that this really is the path we want to follow.  If the current
> metadata we emit is insufficient, we should augment it with additional
> information sufficient to generate the necessary data in the backend.  The
> same annotations would then be able able to generate one OR both debug info
> formats.
>
>>
>> -- adrian
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> Saleem Abdulrasool
> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>


-- 
         此致
礼
罗勇刚
Yours
    sincerely,
Yonggang Luo

From: Saleem Abdulrasool [mailto:compnerd at compnerd.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 10:02 PM
To: Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com>
Cc: Dave Bartolomeo <Dave.Bartolomeo at microsoft.com>; llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: CodeView debug info emission in Clang/LLVM

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Dave Bartolomeo via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
> Proposed Design
> How Debug Info is Generated
> The CodeView type records for a compilation unit will be generated by the
front-end for the source language (Clang, in the case of C and C++). The
front-end has access to the full type system and AST of the language, which is
necessary to generate accurate debug type info. The type records will be
represented as metadata in the LLVM IR, similar to how DWARF debug info is
represented. I’ll cover the actual representation in a bit more detail below.
> The LLVM back-end will be responsible for emitting the CodeView type
records from the IR into the output .obj file. Since the type records will
already be in the correct format, this is essentially just a copy. No inspection
of the type records is necessary within LLVM. The back-end will also be
responsible for generating CodeView symbol records, line numbers, and source
file info for any functions and data defined in the compilation unit. The
back-end is the logical place to do this because only the back-end knows the
code addresses, data addresses, and stack frame layouts.
Thanks for proposing this.

How different are the type records from the type information we currently have
in LLVM's DIType hierarchy? Would it be feasible to move the logic for
generating type records from LLVM metadata into the backend? This way a frontend
could be agnostic about the debug information format.

I think that this really is the path we want to follow.  If the current metadata
we emit is insufficient, we should augment it with additional information
sufficient to generate the necessary data in the backend.  The same annotations
would then be able able to generate one OR both debug info formats.

[dB] I considered that approach, but I see a few reasons why I don’t think
making the debug metadata format agnostic would work out very well. To ensure
that the backed can generate both debug formats by itself, we need to make the
metadata contain enough information from the original AST for the
format-specific code in the backend to generate the debug info. I believe that
in practice, we’d wind up having to encode a significant portion of the AST (for
decls of types and members, at least) into metadata, because debug type info, at
least in CodeView, strives for pretty close fidelity with the declarations and
types in the original source language. The CodeView debug type info is used by
the VS debugger to parse and evaluate C++ expressions while debugging. We
currently have a bunch of limitations in our debugger’s expression evaluation
due to information missing from the debug type info, and we’ll probably attempt
to preserve even more of that information going forward. There’s not much
information from the AST that we can ignore if we want to reach that goal. Of
course, we could just accept that we need the majority of the AST for type and
function declarations in the debug metadata, and do that work in order to avoid
having the frontend know about debug info formats, but that just means that now
the backend code that generates the debug info has to know about all of the
source language-specific constructs that it’s reading when creating the debug
info. I think I’d rather have Clang have to understand the language-specific
parts of multiple debug info formats than have LLVM understand language-specific
metadata.

As an example, the CodeView definition of a user-defined type requires both the
mangled name of the type and the non-mangled “display name” of the type. Both of
these require a fair bit of information from the AST to generate. For the
mangled name in particular, there’s already code in Clang that generates this.
If we want the backend to do this instead, we have to stuff a bunch of AST info
into metadata, and then figure out how to share the name mangling code between
Clang (where it operates on actual ASTs) and LLVM (where it would operate on
metadata). If, instead, we have Clang compute the mangled name and display name
and pass those names in the metadata, we’re not being particularly
format-agnostic in Clang, and if the current compilation is only generating
DWARF, we didn’t really need to compute or store those potentially large strings
for every type anyway.

Whether Clang is format-agnostic or not, there will have to be some component
that converts from something format-agnostic (either ASTs or metadata) to DWARF,
and some component that converts from ASTs or metadata to CodeView. You can put
those two components in Clang and accept that Clang won’t be format-agnostic.
Or, you can put those two components in LLVM, which leaves Clang as
format-agnostic but requires that LLVM be more source language-aware. It also
requires a third component to translate ASTs into metadata to pass to LLVM.
Letting Clang worry about two different debug type info formats seems preferable
to writing additional code and making an LLVM component understand more about
the source language.

Is there another approach I haven’t thought of that would let us wind up with a
cleaner solution? I’ve only been working with the Clang and LLVM debug info code
for a few months, so my knowledge of the existing design is far from complete.

Note that for the rest of debug info (line numbers, source files, stack layouts,
etc.), I don’t think the frontend should have to worry about the debug info
format, and the current design for those pieces is just fine. It’s only the type
info that I think is source language-specific enough to justify computing it in
the frontend.



-- adrian
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2flists.llvm.org%2fcgi-bin%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fllvm-dev&data=01%7c01%7cDave.Bartolomeo%40microsoft.com%7cd240c2d59d2a4a17baf508d2e0e74c79%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Fz6kMmt9LpwG7SvGYKLA4g3%2fYaBWp0AAhFsJKkZQARE%3d>



--
Saleem Abdulrasool
compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151031/cc750a60/attachment-0001.html>

Brief answer, but can go into detail later:

If this is the right idea, lets do it for dwarf too & generalize the
support to work for both. It's certainly something we've considered, to
save all the complexity of representing essentially static data in an
intermediate form.

That said, given some of the stuff we have for lto, for example
(deallocating/merging types etc) I'm not sure that's obviously the right
strategy.

Mangled names for types don't seem like a hugely difficult feature. We
already support mangled names for function debug info in dwarf. We already
have the mangled name of a type in the metadata, it could be used for
codeview emission.

It might be worth talking more & considering what other language features
codeview uses that we haven't already plumbed through for dwarf (& dwarf
based debuggers use dwarf for expression evaluation too, fwiw)
On Oct 30, 2015 5:12 PM, "Dave Bartolomeo via cfe-dev" <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Saleem Abdulrasool [mailto:compnerd at compnerd.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2015 10:02 PM
> *To:* Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com>
> *Cc:* Dave Bartolomeo <Dave.Bartolomeo at microsoft.com>;
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: CodeView debug info emission in Clang/LLVM
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Dave Bartolomeo via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Proposed Design
> > How Debug Info is Generated
> > The CodeView type records for a compilation unit will be generated by
> the front-end for the source language (Clang, in the case of C and C++).
> The front-end has access to the full type system and AST of the language,
> which is necessary to generate accurate debug type info. The type records
> will be represented as metadata in the LLVM IR, similar to how DWARF debug
> info is represented. I’ll cover the actual representation in a bit more
> detail below.
> > The LLVM back-end will be responsible for emitting the CodeView type
> records from the IR into the output .obj file. Since the type records will
> already be in the correct format, this is essentially just a copy. No
> inspection of the type records is necessary within LLVM. The back-end will
> also be responsible for generating CodeView symbol records, line numbers,
> and source file info for any functions and data defined in the compilation
> unit. The back-end is the logical place to do this because only the
> back-end knows the code addresses, data addresses, and stack frame layouts.
>
> Thanks for proposing this.
>
> How different are the type records from the type information we currently
> have in LLVM's DIType hierarchy? Would it be feasible to move the logic
for
> generating type records from LLVM metadata into the backend? This way a
> frontend could be agnostic about the debug information format.
>
>
>
> I think that this really is the path we want to follow.  If the current
> metadata we emit is insufficient, we should augment it with additional
> information sufficient to generate the necessary data in the backend.  The
> same annotations would then be able able to generate one OR both debug info
> formats.
>
>
>
> *[dB] I considered that approach, but I see a few reasons why I don’t
> think making the debug metadata format agnostic would work out very well.
> To ensure that the backed can generate both debug formats by itself, we
> need to make the metadata contain enough information from the original AST
> for the format-specific code in the backend to generate the debug info. I
> believe that in practice, we’d wind up having to encode a significant
> portion of the AST (for decls of types and members, at least) into
> metadata, because debug type info, at least in CodeView, strives for pretty
> close fidelity with the declarations and types in the original source
> language. The CodeView debug type info is used by the VS debugger to parse
> and evaluate C++ expressions while debugging. We currently have a bunch of
> limitations in our debugger’s expression evaluation due to information
> missing from the debug type info, and we’ll probably attempt to preserve
> even more of that information going forward. There’s not much information
> from the AST that we can ignore if we want to reach that goal. Of course,
> we could just accept that we need the majority of the AST for type and
> function declarations in the debug metadata, and do that work in order to
> avoid having the frontend know about debug info formats, but that just
> means that now the backend code that generates the debug info has to know
> about all of the source language-specific constructs that it’s reading when
> creating the debug info. I think I’d rather have Clang have to understand
> the language-specific parts of multiple debug info formats than have LLVM
> understand language-specific metadata.*
>
>
>
> *As an example, the CodeView definition of a user-defined type requires
> both the mangled name of the type and the non-mangled “display name” of the
> type. Both of these require a fair bit of information from the AST to
> generate. For the mangled name in particular, there’s already code in Clang
> that generates this. If we want the backend to do this instead, we have to
> stuff a bunch of AST info into metadata, and then figure out how to share
> the name mangling code between Clang (where it operates on actual ASTs) and
> LLVM (where it would operate on metadata). If, instead, we have Clang
> compute the mangled name and display name and pass those names in the
> metadata, we’re not being particularly format-agnostic in Clang, and if the
> current compilation is only generating DWARF, we didn’t really need to
> compute or store those potentially large strings for every type anyway.*
>
>
>
> *Whether Clang is format-agnostic or not, there will have to be some
> component that converts from something format-agnostic (either ASTs or
> metadata) to DWARF, and some component that converts from ASTs or metadata
> to CodeView. You can put those two components in Clang and accept that
> Clang won’t be format-agnostic. Or, you can put those two components in
> LLVM, which leaves Clang as format-agnostic but requires that LLVM be more
> source language-aware. It also requires a third component to translate ASTs
> into metadata to pass to LLVM. Letting Clang worry about two different
> debug type info formats seems preferable to writing additional code and
> making an LLVM component understand more about the source language.*
>
>
>
> *Is there another approach I haven’t thought of that would let us wind up
> with a cleaner solution? I’ve only been working with the Clang and LLVM
> debug info code for a few months, so my knowledge of the existing design is
> far from complete.*
>
>
>
> *Note that for the rest of debug info (line numbers, source files, stack
> layouts, etc.), I don’t think the frontend should have to worry about the
> debug info format, and the current design for those pieces is just fine.
> It’s only the type info that I think is source language-specific enough to
> justify computing it in the frontend.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- adrian
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2flists.llvm.org%2fcgi-bin%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fllvm-dev&data=01%7c01%7cDave.Bartolomeo%40microsoft.com%7cd240c2d59d2a4a17baf508d2e0e74c79%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Fz6kMmt9LpwG7SvGYKLA4g3%2fYaBWp0AAhFsJKkZQARE%3d>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Saleem Abdulrasool
> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151030/3e3df409/attachment.html>