deadal nix via llvm-dev
2015-Nov-04 05:46 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting macros in LLVM debug info
I'd like to jump in. I do not work on a preprocessor based language, but have the same code expansion problem to encode. Right now, we hack around the problem by appending some prefix after the file name and pretend it is a different file, which is not great. I understand you want to represent expansion by DIFileMacro ? I'm not how this is supposed to be used and it is not in the example. Also, could we use DIExpansion or some other non macro specific name ? Thanks, Amaury SECHET 2015-11-03 10:34 GMT-08:00 David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:> > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Aboud, Amjad <amjad.aboud at intel.com> > wrote: > >> > Not necessarily, if we kept the macros in order in the list of macros >> attached to the CU, which I imagine we would. >> >> OK, now I understand what you are aiming for. I really do not favor one >> on the other. >> >> But, can you explain what is the advantage of the parent approach over >> the children approach? >> > > Not too much in it, really. The only thing I'd wonder about is whether the > parent approach would work better for LTO or not. Bit of a toss-up perhaps. > If each file generally produces the same macros (ie: no per-file macro > weirdness causing different sets of macros to come out of the same file) > then a parent->child structure should deduplicate fine under LTO, I think. > > How is the macinfo referenced by the rest of the debug info? > > >> If any, the children approach seems to be the one reduces the LLVM IR >> size, is not it? >> > > Hmm... yes, good point. I suppose it would involve twice as many pointers > to the relevant nodes (the child nodes move from the parent's child list to > the child's parent pointer, a zero-cost change, but then you add another > pointer to each child from the primary list) > > OK - yeah, I'm fine with a top down design as you have it. (just took me a > little while to think through - since most of our structures are bottom up > to allow new things to be added later/merged during LTO, etc, but that > should be relatively uncommon in this case since we'll be emitting /all/ > the macros in a given file (that are enabled, and differently enabled > features in the same program in different files should be relatively > uncommon)) > > >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Amjad >> >> >> >> *From:* David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2015 18:46 >> >> *To:* Aboud, Amjad >> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting macros in LLVM debug info >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Aboud, Amjad <amjad.aboud at intel.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Do we really need to touch the AST? Or would it be reasonable to wire >> up the CGDebugInfo directly to the PPCallbacks, if it isn't already? >> (perhaps it is already wired up for other reasons?) >> >> This sound as a good idea, I will check that approach. >> >> PPCallbacks is only an interface, has nothing connected to it, but we >> will create a new class, which implement PPCallbacks, for macros. >> >> >> >> Right - I was wondering if CGDebugInfo already implemented PPCallbacks or >> was otherwise being notified of PPCallback related things, possibly through >> a layer or two of indirection. >> >> >> >> So we can connect whatever we want to that class. >> >> The only drawback with this approach, is that we can test the frontend >> using the generated LLVM IR, i.e. the whole path, instead of having two >> tests, AST for testing the parser, and LLVM IR for testing the Sema. >> >> >> >> We don't usually do direct AST tests in Clang for debug info (or for many >> things, really) - we just do source -> llvm IR anyway, so that's nothing >> out of the ordinary. >> >> >> >> >> >> > I wonder if it'd be better to use a parent chain style approach >> (DIMacro has a DIMacroFile it refers to, each DIMacroFile has another one >> that it refers to, up to null)? >> > (does it ever make sense/need to have a DIMacroFile without any macros >> in it? I assume not?) >> First, it seems that GCC does emit MacroFile that has no macros inside (I >> understand that it might not be useful, but I am not sure if we should >> ignore that or not). >> >> >> >> Yeah, that's weird - I'd sort of be inclined to skip it until we know >> what it's useful for. >> >> >> >> Second, I assume that you are suggesting the parent chain style instead >> to the current children style, right? >> >> >> >> Correct >> >> >> >> In this case, won’t it make the debug emitter code much complicated to >> figure out the DFS tree, >> >> >> >> I don't quite imagine it would be more complicated - we would just be >> building the file parent chain as we go, and keeping the current macro file >> around to be used as the parent to any macros we create. >> >> >> >> which should be emitted for the macros, not mentioning the macro order >> which will be lost? >> >> >> >> Not necessarily, if we kept the macros in order in the list of macros >> attached to the CU, which I imagine we would. >> >> >> >> Also, remember that the command line macros have no DIMacroFile parent. >> >> >> >> Fair - they could have the null parent, potentially. >> >> >> >> However, if you meant to use the parent chain in addition to the children >> list, then what extra information it will give us? >> >> >> >> >Might be good to start with dwarfdump support - seems useful regardless >> of anything else? >> >> I agree, and in fact, I already have this code implemented, will upload >> it for review soon. >> >> >> >> Cool >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Amjad >> >> >> >> *From:* David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2015 00:32 >> *To:* Aboud, Amjad >> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting macros in LLVM debug info >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Aboud, Amjad via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I would like to implement macro debug info support in LLVM. >> >> Below you will find 4 parts: >> >> 1. Background on what does it mean to debug macros. >> >> 2. A brief explanation on how to represent macro debug info in >> DWARF 4.0. >> >> 3. The suggested design. >> >> 4. A full example: Source -> AST -> LLVM IR -> DWARF. >> >> >> >> Feel free to skip first two parts if you think you know the background. >> >> Please, let me know if you have any comment or feedback on this approach. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Amjad >> >> >> >> *[Background]* >> >> There are two kind of macro definition: >> >> 1. Simple macro definition, e.g. #define M1 Value1 >> >> 2. Function macro definition, e.g. #define M2(x, y) (x) + (y) >> >> Macro scope starts with the "#define" directive and ends with "#undef" >> directive. >> >> >> >> GDB supports debugging macros. This means, it can evaluate the macro >> expression for all macros, which have a scope that interleaves with the >> current breakpoint. >> >> For example: >> >> GDB command: print M2(3, 5) >> >> GDB Result: 8 >> >> >> >> GDB can evaluate the macro expression based on the ".debug_macroinfo" >> section (DWARF 4.0). >> >> >> >> *[DWARF 4.0 ".debug_macroinfo" section]* >> >> In this section there are 4 kinds of entries >> >> 1. DW_MACROINFO_define >> >> 2. DW_MACROINFO_undef >> >> 3. DW_MACROINFO_start_file >> >> 4. DW_MACROINFO_end_file >> >> >> >> Note: There is a 5th kind of entry for vendor specific macro information, >> that we do not need to support. >> >> >> >> The first two entries contain information about the line number where the >> macro is defined/undefined, and a null terminated string, which contain the >> macro name (followed by the replacement value in case of a definition, or a >> list of parameters then the replacement value in case of function macro >> definition). >> >> The third entry contains information about the line where the file was >> included followed by the file id (an offset into the files table in the >> debug line section). >> >> The fourth entry contains nothing, and it just close the previous entry >> of third kind (start_file) . >> >> >> >> Macro definition and file including entries must appear at the same order >> as they appear in the source file. Where all macro entries between >> "start_file" and "end_file" entries represent macros appears >> directly/indirectly in the included file. >> >> >> >> Special cases: >> >> 1. The main source file should be the first "start_file" entry in >> the sequence, and should have line number "0". >> >> 2. Command line/Compiler definitions must also have line number "0" >> but must appear before the first "start_file" entry. >> >> 3. Command line include files, must also have line number "0" but >> will appear straight after the "start_file" of the main source. >> >> >> >> *[Design]* >> >> To support macros the following components need to be modified: Clang, >> LLVM IR, Dwarf Debug emitter. >> >> >> >> In clang, we need to handle these source directives: >> >> 1. #define >> >> 2. #undef >> >> 3. #include >> >> The idea is to make a use of "PPCallbacks" class, which allows >> preprocessor to notify the parser each time one of the above directives >> occurs. >> >> These are the callbacks that should be implemented: >> >> "MacroDefined", "MacroUndefined", "FileChanged", and "InclusionDirective". >> >> >> >> AST will be extended to support two new DECL types: "MacroDecl" and >> "FileIncludeDecl". >> >> >> >> Do we really need to touch the AST? Or would it be reasonable to wire up >> the CGDebugInfo directly to the PPCallbacks, if it isn't already? (perhaps >> it is already wired up for other reasons?) >> >> >> >> Where "FileIncludeDecl" AST might contain other >> "FileIncludeDecl"/"MacroDecl" ASTs. >> >> These two new AST DECLs are not part of TranslationUnitDecl and are >> handled separately (see AST example below). >> >> >> >> In the LLVM IR, metadata debug info will be extended to support new DIs >> as well: >> >> "DIMacro", "DIFileInclude", and "MacroNode". >> >> The last, is needed as we cannot use DINode as a base class of "DIMacro" >> and DIFileInclude" nodes. >> >> >> >> DIMacro will contain: >> >> · type (definition/undefinition). >> >> · line number (interger). >> >> · name (null terminated string). >> >> · replacement value (null terminated string - optional). >> >> >> >> DIFileMacro will contain: >> >> · line number (interger). >> >> · file (DIFile). >> >> · macro list (MacroNodeArray) - optional. >> >> >> >> I wonder if it'd be better to use a parent chain style approach (DIMacro >> has a DIMacroFile it refers to, each DIMacroFile has another one that it >> refers to, up to null)? >> (does it ever make sense/need to have a DIMacroFile without any macros in >> it? I assume not?) >> >> >> Might be good to start with dwarfdump support - seems useful regardless >> of anything else? >> >> >> >> >> >> In addition, the DICompileUnit will contain a new optional field of macro >> list of type (MacroNodeArray). >> >> >> >> Finally, I assume that macro support should be disabled by default, and >> there should be a flag to enable this feature. I would say that we should >> introduce a new specific flag, e.g. "-gmacro", that could be used with >> "-g". >> >> >> >> *[Example]* >> >> Here is an example that demonstrate the macro support from >> Source->AST->LLVM IR->DWARF. >> >> >> >> Source >> >> ========================================================>> >> mainfile.c: >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> 1. #define M1 Value1 >> >> 2. #include "myfile.h" >> >> 3. #define M2( x , y) ( (x) + (y) * Value2) >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> myfile.h: >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> 1. >> >> 2. >> >> 3. >> >> 4. #undef M1 >> >> 5. #define M1 NewValue1 >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> myfile2.h: >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> 1. #define M4 Value4 >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> ========================================================>> >> >> >> Command line: >> >> clang -c -g -gmacro -O0 -DM3=Value3 -include myfile2.h mainfile.c >> >> >> >> >> >> AST >> >> ========================================================>> >> MacroDecl 0xd6c5c0 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> __llvm__ defined >> >> MacroDecl 0xd6c618 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> __clang__ defined >> >> >> >> … <More compiler macros> … >> >> >> >> MacroDecl 0x11c01b0 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> M3 defined >> >> FileIncludeDecl 0x11c0208 <mainfile.c:1:1> col:1 >> >> |-FileIncludeDecl 0x11c0238 <myfile2.h:1:1> col:1 >> >> | `-MacroDecl 0x11c0268 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> M4 defined >> >> |-MacroDecl 0x11c02c0 <mainfile.c:1:9> col:9 M1 defined >> >> |-FileIncludeDecl 0x11c0318 <myfile.h:1:1> col:1 >> >> | |-MacroDecl 0x11c0348 <line:4:8> col:8 M1 undefined >> >> | `-MacroDecl 0x11c03a0 <line:5:9> col:9 M1 defined >> >> `-MacroDecl 0x11c03f8 <mainfile.c:3:9> col:9 M2 defined >> >> TranslationUnitDecl 0xd6c078 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> >> >> |-TypedefDecl 0xd6c330 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit >> __int128_t '__int128' >> >> |-TypedefDecl 0xd6c370 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit >> __uint128_t 'unsigned __int128' >> >> |-TypedefDecl 0xd6c3c8 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit >> __builtin_ms_va_list 'char *' >> >> `-TypedefDecl 0xd6c590 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit >> __builtin_va_list 'struct __va_list_tag [1]' >> >> ========================================================>> >> >> >> >> >> LLVM IR >> >> ========================================================>> >> target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" >> >> target triple = "x86_64-pc-linux" >> >> >> >> !llvm.dbg.cu = !{!0} >> >> !llvm.module.flags = !{!327} >> >> !llvm.ident = !{!328} >> >> >> >> !0 = distinct !DICompileUnit(language: DW_LANG_C99, file: !1, producer: >> "clang version 3.8.0 (trunk 251321)", isOptimized: false, runtimeVersion: >> 0, emissionKind: 1, enums: !2, macros: !3) >> >> !1 = !DIFile(filename: "mainfile.c", directory: "/") >> >> !2 = !{} >> >> !3 = !{!4, !5, … <More compiler macros> … , !312, !313} >> >> !4 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "__llvm__", value: >> !"1") >> >> !5 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "__clang__", value: >> !"1") >> >> >> >> … <More compiler macros> … >> >> >> >> !312 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "M3", value: >> !"Value3") >> >> !313 = !DIFileInclude(file: !314, nodes: !315) >> >> !314 = !DIFile(filename: "mainfile.c", directory: "/") >> >> !315 = !{!316, !320, !321, !326} >> >> !316 = !DIFileInclude(file: !317, nodes: !318) >> >> !317 = !DIFile(filename: "myfile2.h", directory: "/") >> >> !318 = !{!319} >> >> !319 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "M4", value: >> !"Value4") >> >> !320 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "M1", line: 1, >> value: !"Value1") >> >> !321 = !DIFileInclude(line: 2, file: !322, nodes: !323) >> >> !322 = !DIFile(filename: "myfile.h", directory: "/") >> >> !323 = !{!324, !325} >> >> !324 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_undef, name: "M1", line: 4) >> >> !325 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "M1", line: 5, >> value: !"NewValue1") >> >> !326 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "M2(x,y)", line: 3, >> value: !"( (x) + (y) * Value2)") >> >> !327 = !{i32 2, !"Debug Info Version", i32 3} >> >> !328 = !{!"clang version 3.8.0 (trunk 251321)"} >> >> ========================================================>> >> >> >> >> >> DWARF >> >> ========================================================>> >> Command line: llvm-dwarfdump.exe -debug-dump=macro mainfile.o >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> mainfile3.o: file format ELF64-x86-64 >> >> >> >> .debug_macinfo contents: >> >> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 0 macro: __llvm__ 1 >> >> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 0 macro: __clang__ 1 >> >> >> >> … <More compiler macros> … >> >> >> >> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 0 macro: M3 Value3 >> >> DW_MACINFO_start_file - lineno: 0 filenum: 1 >> >> DW_MACINFO_start_file - lineno: 0 filenum: 2 >> >> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 0 macro: M4 Value4 >> >> DW_MACINFO_end_file >> >> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 1 macro: M1 Value1 >> >> DW_MACINFO_start_file - lineno: 2 filenum: 3 >> >> DW_MACINFO_undef - lineno: 4 macro: M1 >> >> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 5 macro: M1 NewValue1 >> >> DW_MACINFO_end_file >> >> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 3 macro: M2(x,y) ( (x) + (y) * Value2) >> >> DW_MACINFO_end_file >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Command line: llvm-dwarfdump.exe -debug-dump=line mainfile.o >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> .debug_line contents: >> >> >> >> … <Other line table Info> … >> >> >> >> Dir Mod Time File Len File Name >> >> ---- ---------- ---------- --------------------------- >> >> file_names[ 1] 1 0x00000000 0x00000000 mainfile.c >> >> file_names[ 2] 1 0x00000000 0x00000000 myfile2.h >> >> file_names[ 3] 1 0x00000000 0x00000000 myfile.h >> >> ========================================================>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Intel Israel (74) Limited >> >> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for >> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution >> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended >> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Intel Israel (74) Limited >> >> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for >> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution >> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended >> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Intel Israel (74) Limited >> >> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for >> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution >> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended >> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151103/d11ff8f9/attachment-0001.html>
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2015-Nov-04 05:57 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting macros in LLVM debug info
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:46 PM, deadal nix <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote:> I'd like to jump in. I do not work on a preprocessor based language, but > have the same code expansion problem to encode. >Not quite sure whether this proposal will be relevant/help you.> Right now, we hack around the problem by appending some prefix after the > file name and pretend it is a different file, which is not great. > > I understand you want to represent expansion by DIFileMacro ? >Not quite - the purpose of the DWARF macro feature is to describe the original preprocessor macros (not their application) so that a user in a debugger can use those macros when evaluating an expression. Some codebases are heavily macro dependent, so any user wanting to probe/interact with those codebases in their debugger needs the debugger to be able to evaluate expressions that use macros.> I'm not how this is supposed to be used and it is not in the example. > Also, could we use DIExpansion or some other non macro specific name ? >Probably not useful/relevant, since the DWARF feature is specifically for describing macros. Even if it can be used to describe other thingsn (& I'm not sure whether the things your dealing with would map onto this feature) we might as well keep with DWARF's taxonomy rather than introducing another that then has to be mapped into DWARF's taxonomy anyway. - David> > Thanks, > > Amaury SECHET > > > 2015-11-03 10:34 GMT-08:00 David Blaikie via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Aboud, Amjad <amjad.aboud at intel.com> >> wrote: >> >>> > Not necessarily, if we kept the macros in order in the list of macros >>> attached to the CU, which I imagine we would. >>> >>> OK, now I understand what you are aiming for. I really do not favor one >>> on the other. >>> >>> But, can you explain what is the advantage of the parent approach over >>> the children approach? >>> >> >> Not too much in it, really. The only thing I'd wonder about is whether >> the parent approach would work better for LTO or not. Bit of a toss-up >> perhaps. If each file generally produces the same macros (ie: no per-file >> macro weirdness causing different sets of macros to come out of the same >> file) then a parent->child structure should deduplicate fine under LTO, I >> think. >> >> How is the macinfo referenced by the rest of the debug info? >> >> >>> If any, the children approach seems to be the one reduces the LLVM IR >>> size, is not it? >>> >> >> Hmm... yes, good point. I suppose it would involve twice as many pointers >> to the relevant nodes (the child nodes move from the parent's child list to >> the child's parent pointer, a zero-cost change, but then you add another >> pointer to each child from the primary list) >> >> OK - yeah, I'm fine with a top down design as you have it. (just took me >> a little while to think through - since most of our structures are bottom >> up to allow new things to be added later/merged during LTO, etc, but that >> should be relatively uncommon in this case since we'll be emitting /all/ >> the macros in a given file (that are enabled, and differently enabled >> features in the same program in different files should be relatively >> uncommon)) >> >> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Amjad >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2015 18:46 >>> >>> *To:* Aboud, Amjad >>> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting macros in LLVM debug info >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Aboud, Amjad <amjad.aboud at intel.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Do we really need to touch the AST? Or would it be reasonable to wire >>> up the CGDebugInfo directly to the PPCallbacks, if it isn't already? >>> (perhaps it is already wired up for other reasons?) >>> >>> This sound as a good idea, I will check that approach. >>> >>> PPCallbacks is only an interface, has nothing connected to it, but we >>> will create a new class, which implement PPCallbacks, for macros. >>> >>> >>> >>> Right - I was wondering if CGDebugInfo already implemented PPCallbacks >>> or was otherwise being notified of PPCallback related things, possibly >>> through a layer or two of indirection. >>> >>> >>> >>> So we can connect whatever we want to that class. >>> >>> The only drawback with this approach, is that we can test the frontend >>> using the generated LLVM IR, i.e. the whole path, instead of having two >>> tests, AST for testing the parser, and LLVM IR for testing the Sema. >>> >>> >>> >>> We don't usually do direct AST tests in Clang for debug info (or for >>> many things, really) - we just do source -> llvm IR anyway, so that's >>> nothing out of the ordinary. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > I wonder if it'd be better to use a parent chain style approach >>> (DIMacro has a DIMacroFile it refers to, each DIMacroFile has another one >>> that it refers to, up to null)? >>> > (does it ever make sense/need to have a DIMacroFile without any macros >>> in it? I assume not?) >>> First, it seems that GCC does emit MacroFile that has no macros inside >>> (I understand that it might not be useful, but I am not sure if we should >>> ignore that or not). >>> >>> >>> >>> Yeah, that's weird - I'd sort of be inclined to skip it until we know >>> what it's useful for. >>> >>> >>> >>> Second, I assume that you are suggesting the parent chain style instead >>> to the current children style, right? >>> >>> >>> >>> Correct >>> >>> >>> >>> In this case, won’t it make the debug emitter code much complicated to >>> figure out the DFS tree, >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't quite imagine it would be more complicated - we would just be >>> building the file parent chain as we go, and keeping the current macro file >>> around to be used as the parent to any macros we create. >>> >>> >>> >>> which should be emitted for the macros, not mentioning the macro order >>> which will be lost? >>> >>> >>> >>> Not necessarily, if we kept the macros in order in the list of macros >>> attached to the CU, which I imagine we would. >>> >>> >>> >>> Also, remember that the command line macros have no DIMacroFile parent. >>> >>> >>> >>> Fair - they could have the null parent, potentially. >>> >>> >>> >>> However, if you meant to use the parent chain in addition to the >>> children list, then what extra information it will give us? >>> >>> >>> >>> >Might be good to start with dwarfdump support - seems useful regardless >>> of anything else? >>> >>> I agree, and in fact, I already have this code implemented, will upload >>> it for review soon. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cool >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Amjad >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2015 00:32 >>> *To:* Aboud, Amjad >>> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting macros in LLVM debug info >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Aboud, Amjad via llvm-dev < >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would like to implement macro debug info support in LLVM. >>> >>> Below you will find 4 parts: >>> >>> 1. Background on what does it mean to debug macros. >>> >>> 2. A brief explanation on how to represent macro debug info in >>> DWARF 4.0. >>> >>> 3. The suggested design. >>> >>> 4. A full example: Source -> AST -> LLVM IR -> DWARF. >>> >>> >>> >>> Feel free to skip first two parts if you think you know the background. >>> >>> Please, let me know if you have any comment or feedback on this approach. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Amjad >>> >>> >>> >>> *[Background]* >>> >>> There are two kind of macro definition: >>> >>> 1. Simple macro definition, e.g. #define M1 Value1 >>> >>> 2. Function macro definition, e.g. #define M2(x, y) (x) + (y) >>> >>> Macro scope starts with the "#define" directive and ends with "#undef" >>> directive. >>> >>> >>> >>> GDB supports debugging macros. This means, it can evaluate the macro >>> expression for all macros, which have a scope that interleaves with the >>> current breakpoint. >>> >>> For example: >>> >>> GDB command: print M2(3, 5) >>> >>> GDB Result: 8 >>> >>> >>> >>> GDB can evaluate the macro expression based on the ".debug_macroinfo" >>> section (DWARF 4.0). >>> >>> >>> >>> *[DWARF 4.0 ".debug_macroinfo" section]* >>> >>> In this section there are 4 kinds of entries >>> >>> 1. DW_MACROINFO_define >>> >>> 2. DW_MACROINFO_undef >>> >>> 3. DW_MACROINFO_start_file >>> >>> 4. DW_MACROINFO_end_file >>> >>> >>> >>> Note: There is a 5th kind of entry for vendor specific macro >>> information, that we do not need to support. >>> >>> >>> >>> The first two entries contain information about the line number where >>> the macro is defined/undefined, and a null terminated string, which contain >>> the macro name (followed by the replacement value in case of a definition, >>> or a list of parameters then the replacement value in case of function >>> macro definition). >>> >>> The third entry contains information about the line where the file was >>> included followed by the file id (an offset into the files table in the >>> debug line section). >>> >>> The fourth entry contains nothing, and it just close the previous entry >>> of third kind (start_file) . >>> >>> >>> >>> Macro definition and file including entries must appear at the same >>> order as they appear in the source file. Where all macro entries between >>> "start_file" and "end_file" entries represent macros appears >>> directly/indirectly in the included file. >>> >>> >>> >>> Special cases: >>> >>> 1. The main source file should be the first "start_file" entry in >>> the sequence, and should have line number "0". >>> >>> 2. Command line/Compiler definitions must also have line number >>> "0" but must appear before the first "start_file" entry. >>> >>> 3. Command line include files, must also have line number "0" but >>> will appear straight after the "start_file" of the main source. >>> >>> >>> >>> *[Design]* >>> >>> To support macros the following components need to be modified: Clang, >>> LLVM IR, Dwarf Debug emitter. >>> >>> >>> >>> In clang, we need to handle these source directives: >>> >>> 1. #define >>> >>> 2. #undef >>> >>> 3. #include >>> >>> The idea is to make a use of "PPCallbacks" class, which allows >>> preprocessor to notify the parser each time one of the above directives >>> occurs. >>> >>> These are the callbacks that should be implemented: >>> >>> "MacroDefined", "MacroUndefined", "FileChanged", and >>> "InclusionDirective". >>> >>> >>> >>> AST will be extended to support two new DECL types: "MacroDecl" and >>> "FileIncludeDecl". >>> >>> >>> >>> Do we really need to touch the AST? Or would it be reasonable to wire up >>> the CGDebugInfo directly to the PPCallbacks, if it isn't already? (perhaps >>> it is already wired up for other reasons?) >>> >>> >>> >>> Where "FileIncludeDecl" AST might contain other >>> "FileIncludeDecl"/"MacroDecl" ASTs. >>> >>> These two new AST DECLs are not part of TranslationUnitDecl and are >>> handled separately (see AST example below). >>> >>> >>> >>> In the LLVM IR, metadata debug info will be extended to support new DIs >>> as well: >>> >>> "DIMacro", "DIFileInclude", and "MacroNode". >>> >>> The last, is needed as we cannot use DINode as a base class of "DIMacro" >>> and DIFileInclude" nodes. >>> >>> >>> >>> DIMacro will contain: >>> >>> · type (definition/undefinition). >>> >>> · line number (interger). >>> >>> · name (null terminated string). >>> >>> · replacement value (null terminated string - optional). >>> >>> >>> >>> DIFileMacro will contain: >>> >>> · line number (interger). >>> >>> · file (DIFile). >>> >>> · macro list (MacroNodeArray) - optional. >>> >>> >>> >>> I wonder if it'd be better to use a parent chain style approach (DIMacro >>> has a DIMacroFile it refers to, each DIMacroFile has another one that it >>> refers to, up to null)? >>> (does it ever make sense/need to have a DIMacroFile without any macros >>> in it? I assume not?) >>> >>> >>> Might be good to start with dwarfdump support - seems useful regardless >>> of anything else? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> In addition, the DICompileUnit will contain a new optional field of >>> macro list of type (MacroNodeArray). >>> >>> >>> >>> Finally, I assume that macro support should be disabled by default, and >>> there should be a flag to enable this feature. I would say that we should >>> introduce a new specific flag, e.g. "-gmacro", that could be used with >>> "-g". >>> >>> >>> >>> *[Example]* >>> >>> Here is an example that demonstrate the macro support from >>> Source->AST->LLVM IR->DWARF. >>> >>> >>> >>> Source >>> >>> ========================================================>>> >>> mainfile.c: >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> 1. #define M1 Value1 >>> >>> 2. #include "myfile.h" >>> >>> 3. #define M2( x , y) ( (x) + (y) * Value2) >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> myfile.h: >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> 2. >>> >>> 3. >>> >>> 4. #undef M1 >>> >>> 5. #define M1 NewValue1 >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> myfile2.h: >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> 1. #define M4 Value4 >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> ========================================================>>> >>> >>> >>> Command line: >>> >>> clang -c -g -gmacro -O0 -DM3=Value3 -include myfile2.h mainfile.c >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> AST >>> >>> ========================================================>>> >>> MacroDecl 0xd6c5c0 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> __llvm__ defined >>> >>> MacroDecl 0xd6c618 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> __clang__ defined >>> >>> >>> >>> … <More compiler macros> … >>> >>> >>> >>> MacroDecl 0x11c01b0 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> M3 defined >>> >>> FileIncludeDecl 0x11c0208 <mainfile.c:1:1> col:1 >>> >>> |-FileIncludeDecl 0x11c0238 <myfile2.h:1:1> col:1 >>> >>> | `-MacroDecl 0x11c0268 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> M4 defined >>> >>> |-MacroDecl 0x11c02c0 <mainfile.c:1:9> col:9 M1 defined >>> >>> |-FileIncludeDecl 0x11c0318 <myfile.h:1:1> col:1 >>> >>> | |-MacroDecl 0x11c0348 <line:4:8> col:8 M1 undefined >>> >>> | `-MacroDecl 0x11c03a0 <line:5:9> col:9 M1 defined >>> >>> `-MacroDecl 0x11c03f8 <mainfile.c:3:9> col:9 M2 defined >>> >>> TranslationUnitDecl 0xd6c078 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> >>> >>> |-TypedefDecl 0xd6c330 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit >>> __int128_t '__int128' >>> >>> |-TypedefDecl 0xd6c370 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit >>> __uint128_t 'unsigned __int128' >>> >>> |-TypedefDecl 0xd6c3c8 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit >>> __builtin_ms_va_list 'char *' >>> >>> `-TypedefDecl 0xd6c590 <<invalid sloc>> <invalid sloc> implicit >>> __builtin_va_list 'struct __va_list_tag [1]' >>> >>> ========================================================>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> LLVM IR >>> >>> ========================================================>>> >>> target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" >>> >>> target triple = "x86_64-pc-linux" >>> >>> >>> >>> !llvm.dbg.cu = !{!0} >>> >>> !llvm.module.flags = !{!327} >>> >>> !llvm.ident = !{!328} >>> >>> >>> >>> !0 = distinct !DICompileUnit(language: DW_LANG_C99, file: !1, producer: >>> "clang version 3.8.0 (trunk 251321)", isOptimized: false, runtimeVersion: >>> 0, emissionKind: 1, enums: !2, macros: !3) >>> >>> !1 = !DIFile(filename: "mainfile.c", directory: "/") >>> >>> !2 = !{} >>> >>> !3 = !{!4, !5, … <More compiler macros> … , !312, !313} >>> >>> !4 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "__llvm__", value: >>> !"1") >>> >>> !5 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "__clang__", value: >>> !"1") >>> >>> >>> >>> … <More compiler macros> … >>> >>> >>> >>> !312 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "M3", value: >>> !"Value3") >>> >>> !313 = !DIFileInclude(file: !314, nodes: !315) >>> >>> !314 = !DIFile(filename: "mainfile.c", directory: "/") >>> >>> !315 = !{!316, !320, !321, !326} >>> >>> !316 = !DIFileInclude(file: !317, nodes: !318) >>> >>> !317 = !DIFile(filename: "myfile2.h", directory: "/") >>> >>> !318 = !{!319} >>> >>> !319 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "M4", value: >>> !"Value4") >>> >>> !320 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "M1", line: 1, >>> value: !"Value1") >>> >>> !321 = !DIFileInclude(line: 2, file: !322, nodes: !323) >>> >>> !322 = !DIFile(filename: "myfile.h", directory: "/") >>> >>> !323 = !{!324, !325} >>> >>> !324 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_undef, name: "M1", line: 4) >>> >>> !325 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "M1", line: 5, >>> value: !"NewValue1") >>> >>> !326 = !DIMacro(macro type: DW_MACINFO_define, name: "M2(x,y)", line: 3, >>> value: !"( (x) + (y) * Value2)") >>> >>> !327 = !{i32 2, !"Debug Info Version", i32 3} >>> >>> !328 = !{!"clang version 3.8.0 (trunk 251321)"} >>> >>> ========================================================>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> DWARF >>> >>> ========================================================>>> >>> Command line: llvm-dwarfdump.exe -debug-dump=macro mainfile.o >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> mainfile3.o: file format ELF64-x86-64 >>> >>> >>> >>> .debug_macinfo contents: >>> >>> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 0 macro: __llvm__ 1 >>> >>> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 0 macro: __clang__ 1 >>> >>> >>> >>> … <More compiler macros> … >>> >>> >>> >>> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 0 macro: M3 Value3 >>> >>> DW_MACINFO_start_file - lineno: 0 filenum: 1 >>> >>> DW_MACINFO_start_file - lineno: 0 filenum: 2 >>> >>> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 0 macro: M4 Value4 >>> >>> DW_MACINFO_end_file >>> >>> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 1 macro: M1 Value1 >>> >>> DW_MACINFO_start_file - lineno: 2 filenum: 3 >>> >>> DW_MACINFO_undef - lineno: 4 macro: M1 >>> >>> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 5 macro: M1 NewValue1 >>> >>> DW_MACINFO_end_file >>> >>> DW_MACINFO_define - lineno: 3 macro: M2(x,y) ( (x) + (y) * Value2) >>> >>> DW_MACINFO_end_file >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Command line: llvm-dwarfdump.exe -debug-dump=line mainfile.o >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> .debug_line contents: >>> >>> >>> >>> … <Other line table Info> … >>> >>> >>> >>> Dir Mod Time File Len File Name >>> >>> ---- ---------- ---------- --------------------------- >>> >>> file_names[ 1] 1 0x00000000 0x00000000 mainfile.c >>> >>> file_names[ 2] 1 0x00000000 0x00000000 myfile2.h >>> >>> file_names[ 3] 1 0x00000000 0x00000000 myfile.h >>> >>> ========================================================>>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Intel Israel (74) Limited >>> >>> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for >>> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution >>> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended >>> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Intel Israel (74) Limited >>> >>> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for >>> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution >>> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended >>> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Intel Israel (74) Limited >>> >>> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for >>> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution >>> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended >>> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151103/6962f693/attachment.html>
deadal nix via llvm-dev
2015-Nov-04 07:01 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting macros in LLVM debug info
I think you misunderstood. I obviously have no intention to use the macro def/undef part of things. I was more wondering about a DIFileMacro or alike to signify expansion in DILocation rather than regular. Is that in or out of that discussion ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151103/03b51cb5/attachment.html>