Aboud, Amjad via llvm-dev
2015-Nov-18 14:57 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting all entities declared in lexical scope in LLVM debug info
Hi,
I would like to implement a fix to how LLVM handles/creates debug info for
entities declared inside a basic block.
Below you will find 5 parts:
1. Motivation for this fix.
2. Background explaining the cases that need to be fixed.
3. An example for each case.
4. Proposal on how to represent each case in dwarf.
5. Secondary (workaround) proposal which might be needed in the short term
until applying a fix in GDB debugger.
Please, let me know if you have any comment or feedback on this approach.
Thanks,
Amjad
Motivation
Current implementation causes loss of debug info, even when optimizations are
disabled.
For example:
int foo(bool b) {
if (b) {
typedef int A;
class B { public: int x; };
B y;
static A z = 0;
return y.x + z++;
} else {
typedef float A;
class B { public: float x; };
B y;
static A z = 0.0;
return (int)(y.x + z++);
}
}
In the above example, debugger will not be able to fetch the correct value for
types "A" and "B" and for local static variable
"z", however it will work fine with local variable "y".
The local static variable has an open ticket in LLVM Bugzilla:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19238
Background
These are all the entities that can be declared inside a lexical scope (i.e.
function or basic block):
1. Local variable
2. Local static variable
3. Imported Entity
a. Imported declaration
b. Imported module
4. Type
a. Record (structure, class, union)
b. Typedef
In the current LLVM implementation only (1) the local variables are handled
correctly.
(2) local static variables and (4) Types are associated in clang-FE to the
function lexical scope even when they are declared in an internal basic block.
(3) Imported Entity is handled differently depends on where it is declared, in
function lexical scope or in basic block scope.
There are two interesting cases where we should consider the representation in
dwarf for the above entities:
a. Function was not inlined - has one concrete entry.
b. Function was inlined - has one abstract entry, one or more inlined
entries, and possibly one concrete entry.
The goal is to be able to debug all the above entities in case (a) - which is
the common case when compile with no optimizations. But also, we would like to
be able to debug as many entities as we can also in case (b), the optimized
mode.
Example
These are two examples that represent cases (a) and (b) with all the entities
mentioned above.
// (Case a)
namespace N {
class D;
};
int foo() {
{
using namespace N;
using N::D;
typedef int A;
class B { public: int x; };
B y;
static A z = 0;
return y.x + z++;
}
}
// (Case b)
__attribute__(always_inline)
int foo(bool b) {
// same as case (a)
}
int bar() {
return foo();
}
Proposed representation in dwarf
Case (a) - There is only one concrete function with one lexical block
(DW_TAG_lexical_block) entry. Each entity will have a dwarf entry placed under
the lexical block scope the same as appear in the source.
(1) DW_TAG_subprogram (concrete)
DW_AT_name (= "foo")
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(2) LexicalBlock
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(3) DW_TAG_imported_module
DW_AT_import (=> N)
(3) DW_TAG_imported_declaration
DW_AT_import (=> N::D)
(3) DW_TAG_typedef
DW_AT_name (= "A")
DW_AT_type (=> int)
(3) DW_TAG_class_type
DW_AT_name (= "B")
(4) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name (= "x")
DW_AT_type (= int)
(3) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name (= "y")
DW_AT_type (=> B)
DW_AT_location
(3) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name (= "z")
DW_AT_type (= A)
DW_AT_location
Case (b) - There is one abstract function, one inline function
(DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine) and one concrete function, each has one lexical
block entry.
Each entity will have a dwarf entry placed under the lexical block scope of the
abstract function. Where these entries will contain all the debug info
attributes for the represented entity, except for the local variable that will
be missing the location attribute (DW_AT_location), as it is not common to all
inline/concrete functions.
In addition, under each lexical block entry in the inline/concrete function
entry there will be:
1. Abstract origin attribute (DW_AT_abstract_origin) pointing to the
equivalent lexical block entry in the abstract function.
2. Local variable entry - with abstract origin attribute pointing to the
one in the abstract function, and also the location attribute.
(1) DW_TAG_subprogram (abstract)
DW_AT_name (= "foo")
DW_AT_inline
(2) LexicalBlock
(3) DW_TAG_imported_module
DW_AT_import (=> N)
(3) DW_TAG_imported_declaration
DW_AT_import (=> N::D)
(3) DW_TAG_typedef
DW_AT_name (= "A")
DW_AT_type (=> int)
(3) DW_TAG_class_type
DW_AT_name (= "B")
(4) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name (= "x")
DW_AT_type (= int)
(3) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name (= "y")
DW_AT_type (=> B)
(3) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name (= "z")
DW_AT_type (=> A)
DW_AT_location
(1) DW_TAG_subprogram (concrete)
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo")
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(2) LexicalBlock
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract lexical block)
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(3) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y")
DW_AT_location
(1) DW_TAG_subprogram
DW_AT_name (= "bar")
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(2) DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine (inline)
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo")
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(3) LexicalBlock
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract lexical block)
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(4) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y")
DW_AT_location
This would be the optimal solution if GDB would support the
"DW_AT_abstract_origin" attribute on lexical block.
The idea of having this variable on lexical block is to inform the debugger that
all attributes and (direct) children of the abstract lexical block are available
for the inline/concrete lexical block as well.
GDB does not support the above proposal and I suggest to open a bug on GDB
debugger to support this.
Do you think otherwise?
Workaround solution
In the meanwhile and till GDB implement the above requirement, we can implement
a different approach for case (b), that will allows GDB to provide information
on all entities in the inline/concrete function (except for types).
The abstract function will still be the same, however the inline/concrete
functions will be changed as follow:
(1) DW_TAG_subprogram (concrete)
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo")
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(2) LexicalBlock
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(3) DW_TAG_imported_module
DW_AT_import (=> N)
(3) DW_TAG_imported_declaration
DW_AT_import (=> N::D)
(3) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y")
DW_AT_location
(3) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract static variable "z")
(1) DW_TAG_subprogram
DW_AT_name (= "bar")
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(2) DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine (inline)
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo")
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(3) LexicalBlock
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(4) DW_TAG_imported_module
DW_AT_import (=> N)
(4) DW_TAG_imported_declaration
DW_AT_import (=> N::D)
(4) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y")
DW_AT_location
(4) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract static variable "z")
I already have an implementation for this proposal and the changes between the
optimal solution, which needs support from GDB, and the workaround solution is
minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151118/650f0e43/attachment-0001.html>
Aboud, Amjad via llvm-dev
2015-Dec-14 15:01 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting all entities declared in lexical scope in LLVM debug info
Hi,
I verified that GDB 7.10 does support "DW_AT_abstract_origin"
attribute on "DW_TAG_lexical_block".
This means, that we can implement the proposal I suggested below, and there is
no need to open a change request for GDB.
However, I am not sure about LLDB.
My understanding is that LLDB does not support declarations inside lexical block
properly.
In the below example, the following command on LLDB:
? ptype A
Will print two suggestions for "A":
1. float
2. int
Letting the user decide what is the proper type from the list of possible
answers.
Unless there are any real concerns regarding this proposal, I intend to start
uploading the implementation soon.
Please, let me know if you have any comment or feedback.
Thanks,
Amjad
From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Aboud,
Amjad via llvm-dev
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 16:58
To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Cc: Merritt, Steve; Wyma, Brock
Subject: [llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting all entities declared in lexical scope in
LLVM debug info
Hi,
I would like to implement a fix to how LLVM handles/creates debug info for
entities declared inside a basic block.
Below you will find 5 parts:
1. Motivation for this fix.
2. Background explaining the cases that need to be fixed.
3. An example for each case.
4. Proposal on how to represent each case in dwarf.
5. Secondary (workaround) proposal which might be needed in the short term
until applying a fix in GDB debugger.
Please, let me know if you have any comment or feedback on this approach.
Thanks,
Amjad
Motivation
Current implementation causes loss of debug info, even when optimizations are
disabled.
For example:
int foo(bool b) {
if (b) {
typedef int A;
class B { public: int x; };
B y;
static A z = 0;
return y.x + z++;
} else {
typedef float A;
class B { public: float x; };
B y;
static A z = 0.0;
return (int)(y.x + z++);
}
}
In the above example, debugger will not be able to fetch the correct value for
types "A" and "B" and for local static variable
"z", however it will work fine with local variable "y".
The local static variable has an open ticket in LLVM Bugzilla:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19238
Background
These are all the entities that can be declared inside a lexical scope (i.e.
function or basic block):
1. Local variable
2. Local static variable
3. Imported Entity
a. Imported declaration
b. Imported module
4. Type
a. Record (structure, class, union)
b. Typedef
In the current LLVM implementation only (1) the local variables are handled
correctly.
(2) local static variables and (4) Types are associated in clang-FE to the
function lexical scope even when they are declared in an internal basic block.
(3) Imported Entity is handled differently depends on where it is declared, in
function lexical scope or in basic block scope.
There are two interesting cases where we should consider the representation in
dwarf for the above entities:
a. Function was not inlined - has one concrete entry.
b. Function was inlined - has one abstract entry, one or more inlined
entries, and possibly one concrete entry.
The goal is to be able to debug all the above entities in case (a) - which is
the common case when compile with no optimizations. But also, we would like to
be able to debug as many entities as we can also in case (b), the optimized
mode.
Example
These are two examples that represent cases (a) and (b) with all the entities
mentioned above.
// (Case a)
namespace N {
class D;
};
int foo() {
{
using namespace N;
using N::D;
typedef int A;
class B { public: int x; };
B y;
static A z = 0;
return y.x + z++;
}
}
// (Case b)
__attribute__(always_inline)
int foo(bool b) {
// same as case (a)
}
int bar() {
return foo();
}
Proposed representation in dwarf
Case (a) - There is only one concrete function with one lexical block
(DW_TAG_lexical_block) entry. Each entity will have a dwarf entry placed under
the lexical block scope the same as appear in the source.
(1) DW_TAG_subprogram (concrete)
DW_AT_name (= "foo")
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(2) LexicalBlock
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(3) DW_TAG_imported_module
DW_AT_import (=> N)
(3) DW_TAG_imported_declaration
DW_AT_import (=> N::D)
(3) DW_TAG_typedef
DW_AT_name (= "A")
DW_AT_type (=> int)
(3) DW_TAG_class_type
DW_AT_name (= "B")
(4) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name (= "x")
DW_AT_type (= int)
(3) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name (= "y")
DW_AT_type (=> B)
DW_AT_location
(3) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name (= "z")
DW_AT_type (= A)
DW_AT_location
Case (b) - There is one abstract function, one inline function
(DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine) and one concrete function, each has one lexical
block entry.
Each entity will have a dwarf entry placed under the lexical block scope of the
abstract function. Where these entries will contain all the debug info
attributes for the represented entity, except for the local variable that will
be missing the location attribute (DW_AT_location), as it is not common to all
inline/concrete functions.
In addition, under each lexical block entry in the inline/concrete function
entry there will be:
1. Abstract origin attribute (DW_AT_abstract_origin) pointing to the
equivalent lexical block entry in the abstract function.
2. Local variable entry - with abstract origin attribute pointing to the
one in the abstract function, and also the location attribute.
(1) DW_TAG_subprogram (abstract)
DW_AT_name (= "foo")
DW_AT_inline
(2) LexicalBlock
(3) DW_TAG_imported_module
DW_AT_import (=> N)
(3) DW_TAG_imported_declaration
DW_AT_import (=> N::D)
(3) DW_TAG_typedef
DW_AT_name (= "A")
DW_AT_type (=> int)
(3) DW_TAG_class_type
DW_AT_name (= "B")
(4) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name (= "x")
DW_AT_type (= int)
(3) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name (= "y")
DW_AT_type (=> B)
(3) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_name (= "z")
DW_AT_type (=> A)
DW_AT_location
(1) DW_TAG_subprogram (concrete)
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo")
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(2) LexicalBlock
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract lexical block)
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(3) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y")
DW_AT_location
(1) DW_TAG_subprogram
DW_AT_name (= "bar")
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(2) DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine (inline)
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo")
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(3) LexicalBlock
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract lexical block)
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(4) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y")
DW_AT_location
This would be the optimal solution if GDB would support the
"DW_AT_abstract_origin" attribute on lexical block.
The idea of having this variable on lexical block is to inform the debugger that
all attributes and (direct) children of the abstract lexical block are available
for the inline/concrete lexical block as well.
GDB does not support the above proposal and I suggest to open a bug on GDB
debugger to support this.
Do you think otherwise?
Workaround solution
In the meanwhile and till GDB implement the above requirement, we can implement
a different approach for case (b), that will allows GDB to provide information
on all entities in the inline/concrete function (except for types).
The abstract function will still be the same, however the inline/concrete
functions will be changed as follow:
(1) DW_TAG_subprogram (concrete)
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo")
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(2) LexicalBlock
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(3) DW_TAG_imported_module
DW_AT_import (=> N)
(3) DW_TAG_imported_declaration
DW_AT_import (=> N::D)
(3) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y")
DW_AT_location
(3) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract static variable "z")
(1) DW_TAG_subprogram
DW_AT_name (= "bar")
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(2) DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine (inline)
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo")
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(3) LexicalBlock
DW_AT_low_pc
DW_AT_low_high
(4) DW_TAG_imported_module
DW_AT_import (=> N)
(4) DW_TAG_imported_declaration
DW_AT_import (=> N::D)
(4) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y")
DW_AT_location
(4) DW_TAG_variable
DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract static variable "z")
I already have an implementation for this proposal and the changes between the
optimal solution, which needs support from GDB, and the workaround solution is
minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151214/352457db/attachment.html>
Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev
2015-Dec-14 18:26 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting all entities declared in lexical scope in LLVM debug info
The proposed DWARF looks correct. It was not clear from your description whether Clang correctly sets up the metadata to show the scoping, or whether the problem is merely how LLVM interprets the metadata and emits the DWARF. But, I assume we'll be able to tell once you start uploading the patches. :) One terminology nit: A number of times you refer to a "basic block" but in all cases the correct term would be "lexical block." Thanks, --paulr From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Aboud, Amjad via llvm-dev Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:01 AM To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Cc: Merritt, Steve; Wyma, Brock Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting all entities declared in lexical scope in LLVM debug info Hi, I verified that GDB 7.10 does support "DW_AT_abstract_origin" attribute on "DW_TAG_lexical_block". This means, that we can implement the proposal I suggested below, and there is no need to open a change request for GDB. However, I am not sure about LLDB. My understanding is that LLDB does not support declarations inside lexical block properly. In the below example, the following command on LLDB:> ptype AWill print two suggestions for "A": 1. float 2. int Letting the user decide what is the proper type from the list of possible answers. Unless there are any real concerns regarding this proposal, I intend to start uploading the implementation soon. Please, let me know if you have any comment or feedback. Thanks, Amjad From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Aboud, Amjad via llvm-dev Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 16:58 To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Cc: Merritt, Steve; Wyma, Brock Subject: [llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting all entities declared in lexical scope in LLVM debug info Hi, I would like to implement a fix to how LLVM handles/creates debug info for entities declared inside a basic block. Below you will find 5 parts: 1. Motivation for this fix. 2. Background explaining the cases that need to be fixed. 3. An example for each case. 4. Proposal on how to represent each case in dwarf. 5. Secondary (workaround) proposal which might be needed in the short term until applying a fix in GDB debugger. Please, let me know if you have any comment or feedback on this approach. Thanks, Amjad Motivation Current implementation causes loss of debug info, even when optimizations are disabled. For example: int foo(bool b) { if (b) { typedef int A; class B { public: int x; }; B y; static A z = 0; return y.x + z++; } else { typedef float A; class B { public: float x; }; B y; static A z = 0.0; return (int)(y.x + z++); } } In the above example, debugger will not be able to fetch the correct value for types "A" and "B" and for local static variable "z", however it will work fine with local variable "y". The local static variable has an open ticket in LLVM Bugzilla: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19238 Background These are all the entities that can be declared inside a lexical scope (i.e. function or basic block): 1. Local variable 2. Local static variable 3. Imported Entity a. Imported declaration b. Imported module 4. Type a. Record (structure, class, union) b. Typedef In the current LLVM implementation only (1) the local variables are handled correctly. (2) local static variables and (4) Types are associated in clang-FE to the function lexical scope even when they are declared in an internal basic block. (3) Imported Entity is handled differently depends on where it is declared, in function lexical scope or in basic block scope. There are two interesting cases where we should consider the representation in dwarf for the above entities: a. Function was not inlined - has one concrete entry. b. Function was inlined - has one abstract entry, one or more inlined entries, and possibly one concrete entry. The goal is to be able to debug all the above entities in case (a) - which is the common case when compile with no optimizations. But also, we would like to be able to debug as many entities as we can also in case (b), the optimized mode. Example These are two examples that represent cases (a) and (b) with all the entities mentioned above. // (Case a) namespace N { class D; }; int foo() { { using namespace N; using N::D; typedef int A; class B { public: int x; }; B y; static A z = 0; return y.x + z++; } } // (Case b) __attribute__(always_inline) int foo(bool b) { // same as case (a) } int bar() { return foo(); } Proposed representation in dwarf Case (a) - There is only one concrete function with one lexical block (DW_TAG_lexical_block) entry. Each entity will have a dwarf entry placed under the lexical block scope the same as appear in the source. (1) DW_TAG_subprogram (concrete) DW_AT_name (= "foo") DW_AT_low_pc DW_AT_low_high (2) LexicalBlock DW_AT_low_pc DW_AT_low_high (3) DW_TAG_imported_module DW_AT_import (=> N) (3) DW_TAG_imported_declaration DW_AT_import (=> N::D) (3) DW_TAG_typedef DW_AT_name (= "A") DW_AT_type (=> int) (3) DW_TAG_class_type DW_AT_name (= "B") (4) DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_name (= "x") DW_AT_type (= int) (3) DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_name (= "y") DW_AT_type (=> B) DW_AT_location (3) DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_name (= "z") DW_AT_type (= A) DW_AT_location Case (b) - There is one abstract function, one inline function (DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine) and one concrete function, each has one lexical block entry. Each entity will have a dwarf entry placed under the lexical block scope of the abstract function. Where these entries will contain all the debug info attributes for the represented entity, except for the local variable that will be missing the location attribute (DW_AT_location), as it is not common to all inline/concrete functions. In addition, under each lexical block entry in the inline/concrete function entry there will be: 1. Abstract origin attribute (DW_AT_abstract_origin) pointing to the equivalent lexical block entry in the abstract function. 2. Local variable entry - with abstract origin attribute pointing to the one in the abstract function, and also the location attribute. (1) DW_TAG_subprogram (abstract) DW_AT_name (= "foo") DW_AT_inline (2) LexicalBlock (3) DW_TAG_imported_module DW_AT_import (=> N) (3) DW_TAG_imported_declaration DW_AT_import (=> N::D) (3) DW_TAG_typedef DW_AT_name (= "A") DW_AT_type (=> int) (3) DW_TAG_class_type DW_AT_name (= "B") (4) DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_name (= "x") DW_AT_type (= int) (3) DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_name (= "y") DW_AT_type (=> B) (3) DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_name (= "z") DW_AT_type (=> A) DW_AT_location (1) DW_TAG_subprogram (concrete) DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo") DW_AT_low_pc DW_AT_low_high (2) LexicalBlock DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract lexical block) DW_AT_low_pc DW_AT_low_high (3) DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y") DW_AT_location (1) DW_TAG_subprogram DW_AT_name (= "bar") DW_AT_low_pc DW_AT_low_high (2) DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine (inline) DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo") DW_AT_low_pc DW_AT_low_high (3) LexicalBlock DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract lexical block) DW_AT_low_pc DW_AT_low_high (4) DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y") DW_AT_location This would be the optimal solution if GDB would support the "DW_AT_abstract_origin" attribute on lexical block. The idea of having this variable on lexical block is to inform the debugger that all attributes and (direct) children of the abstract lexical block are available for the inline/concrete lexical block as well. GDB does not support the above proposal and I suggest to open a bug on GDB debugger to support this. Do you think otherwise? Workaround solution In the meanwhile and till GDB implement the above requirement, we can implement a different approach for case (b), that will allows GDB to provide information on all entities in the inline/concrete function (except for types). The abstract function will still be the same, however the inline/concrete functions will be changed as follow: (1) DW_TAG_subprogram (concrete) DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo") DW_AT_low_pc DW_AT_low_high (2) LexicalBlock DW_AT_low_pc DW_AT_low_high (3) DW_TAG_imported_module DW_AT_import (=> N) (3) DW_TAG_imported_declaration DW_AT_import (=> N::D) (3) DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y") DW_AT_location (3) DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract static variable "z") (1) DW_TAG_subprogram DW_AT_name (= "bar") DW_AT_low_pc DW_AT_low_high (2) DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine (inline) DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo") DW_AT_low_pc DW_AT_low_high (3) LexicalBlock DW_AT_low_pc DW_AT_low_high (4) DW_TAG_imported_module DW_AT_import (=> N) (4) DW_TAG_imported_declaration DW_AT_import (=> N::D) (4) DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y") DW_AT_location (4) DW_TAG_variable DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract static variable "z") I already have an implementation for this proposal and the changes between the optimal solution, which needs support from GDB, and the workaround solution is minimal. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151214/e662e8cb/attachment-0001.html>
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2016-Jan-19 23:48 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting all entities declared in lexical scope in LLVM debug info
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Aboud, Amjad via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Hi, > > I verified that GDB 7.10 does support “DW_AT_abstract_origin” attribute on > “DW_TAG_lexical_block”. >I take it you mean that it does the right thing, finding the direct children of the abstract block when stepping into the inlined subroutine, etc? & this was a recent change/fix - because you'd verified that this did not work previously/in recent past GDB versions?> This means, that we can implement the proposal I suggested below, and > there is no need to open a change request for GDB. > > > > However, I am not sure about LLDB. > > My understanding is that LLDB does not support declarations inside lexical > block properly. > > In the below example, the following command on LLDB: > > Ø ptype A > > Will print two suggestions for “A”: > > 1. float > > 2. int > >Adrian - want to test this sort of thing on LLDB? (Amjad - do you have a quick hack/patch Adrian could apply to generate a simple example on MacOS to test with LLDB there?) Would you want us to consider this a bug in LLDB & just forge ahead fixing this the right way? Or implement a fallback that duplicates local types/using declarations/static variables into the inlined subroutines rather than only emitting them in the abstract definition? - Dave> > > Letting the user decide what is the proper type from the list of possible > answers. > > > > Unless there are any real concerns regarding this proposal, I intend to > start uploading the implementation soon. > > Please, let me know if you have any comment or feedback. > > > > Thanks, > > Amjad > > > > > > *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of *Aboud, > Amjad via llvm-dev > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2015 16:58 > *To:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > *Cc:* Merritt, Steve; Wyma, Brock > *Subject:* [llvm-dev] RFC: Supporting all entities declared in lexical > scope in LLVM debug info > > > > Hi, > > I would like to implement a fix to how LLVM handles/creates debug info for > entities declared inside a basic block. > > Below you will find 5 parts: > > 1. Motivation for this fix. > > 2. Background explaining the cases that need to be fixed. > > 3. An example for each case. > > 4. Proposal on how to represent each case in dwarf. > > 5. Secondary (workaround) proposal which might be needed in the > short term until applying a fix in GDB debugger. > > > > Please, let me know if you have any comment or feedback on this approach. > > > > Thanks, > > Amjad > > > > *Motivation* > > Current implementation causes loss of debug info, even when optimizations > are disabled. > > > > For example: > > > > int foo(bool b) { > > if (b) { > > typedef int A; > > class B { public: int x; }; > > B y; > > static A z = 0; > > return y.x + z++; > > } else { > > typedef float A; > > class B { public: float x; }; > > B y; > > static A z = 0.0; > > return (int)(y.x + z++); > > } > > } > > > > In the above example, debugger will not be able to fetch the correct value > for types "A" and "B" and for local static variable "z", however it will > work fine with local variable "y". > > > > The local static variable has an open ticket in LLVM Bugzilla: > > https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19238 > > > > *Background* > > These are all the entities that can be declared inside a lexical scope > (i.e. function or basic block): > > 1. Local variable > > 2. Local static variable > > 3. Imported Entity > > a. Imported declaration > > b. Imported module > > 4. Type > > a. Record (structure, class, union) > > b. Typedef > > > > In the current LLVM implementation only (1) the local variables are > handled correctly. > > (2) local static variables and (4) Types are associated in clang-FE to the > function lexical scope even when they are declared in an internal basic > block. > > (3) Imported Entity is handled differently depends on where it is > declared, in function lexical scope or in basic block scope. > > > > There are two interesting cases where we should consider the > representation in dwarf for the above entities: > > a. Function was not inlined - has one concrete entry. > > b. Function was inlined - has one abstract entry, one or more > inlined entries, and possibly one concrete entry. > > > > The goal is to be able to debug all the above entities in case (a) - which > is the common case when compile with no optimizations. But also, we would > like to be able to debug as many entities as we can also in case (b), the > optimized mode. > > > > *Example* > > These are two examples that represent cases (a) and (b) with all the > entities mentioned above. > > > > // (Case a) > > namespace N { > > class D; > > }; > > int foo() { > > { > > using namespace N; > > using N::D; > > typedef int A; > > class B { public: int x; }; > > B y; > > static A z = 0; > > return y.x + z++; > > } > > } > > > > // (Case b) > > __attribute__(always_inline) > > int foo(bool b) { > > // same as case (a) > > } > > > > int bar() { > > return foo(); > > } > > > > *Proposed representation in dwarf* > > Case (a) - There is only one concrete function with one lexical block > (DW_TAG_lexical_block) entry. Each entity will have a dwarf entry placed > under the lexical block scope the same as appear in the source. > > > > (1) DW_TAG_subprogram (concrete) > > DW_AT_name (= "foo") > > DW_AT_low_pc > > DW_AT_low_high > > > > (2) LexicalBlock > > DW_AT_low_pc > > DW_AT_low_high > > > > (3) DW_TAG_imported_module > > DW_AT_import (=> N) > > > > (3) DW_TAG_imported_declaration > > DW_AT_import (=> N::D) > > > > (3) DW_TAG_typedef > > DW_AT_name (= "A") > > DW_AT_type (=> int) > > > > (3) DW_TAG_class_type > > DW_AT_name (= "B") > > > > (4) DW_TAG_variable > > DW_AT_name (= "x") > > DW_AT_type (= int) > > > > (3) DW_TAG_variable > > DW_AT_name (= "y") > > DW_AT_type (=> B) > > DW_AT_location > > > > (3) DW_TAG_variable > > DW_AT_name (= "z") > > DW_AT_type (= A) > > DW_AT_location > > > > > > Case (b) - There is one abstract function, one inline function > (DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine) and one concrete function, each has one > lexical block entry. > > Each entity will have a dwarf entry placed under the lexical block scope > of the abstract function. Where these entries will contain all the debug > info attributes for the represented entity, except for the local variable > that will be missing the location attribute (DW_AT_location), as it is not > common to all inline/concrete functions. > > In addition, under each lexical block entry in the inline/concrete > function entry there will be: > > 1. Abstract origin attribute (DW_AT_abstract_origin) pointing to the > equivalent lexical block entry in the abstract function. > > 2. Local variable entry - with abstract origin attribute pointing to > the one in the abstract function, and also the location attribute. > > > > (1) DW_TAG_subprogram (abstract) > > DW_AT_name (= "foo") > > DW_AT_inline > > > > (2) LexicalBlock > > > > (3) DW_TAG_imported_module > > DW_AT_import (=> N) > > > > (3) DW_TAG_imported_declaration > > DW_AT_import (=> N::D) > > > > (3) DW_TAG_typedef > > DW_AT_name (= "A") > > DW_AT_type (=> int) > > > > (3) DW_TAG_class_type > > DW_AT_name (= "B") > > > > (4) DW_TAG_variable > > DW_AT_name (= "x") > > DW_AT_type (= int) > > > > (3) DW_TAG_variable > > DW_AT_name (= "y") > > DW_AT_type (=> B) > > > > (3) DW_TAG_variable > > DW_AT_name (= "z") > > DW_AT_type (=> A) > > DW_AT_location > > > > > > (1) DW_TAG_subprogram (concrete) > > DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo") > > DW_AT_low_pc > > DW_AT_low_high > > > > (2) LexicalBlock > > DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract lexical block) > > DW_AT_low_pc > > DW_AT_low_high > > > > (3) DW_TAG_variable > > DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y") > > DW_AT_location > > > > > > (1) DW_TAG_subprogram > > DW_AT_name (= "bar") > > DW_AT_low_pc > > DW_AT_low_high > > > > (2) DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine (inline) > > DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo") > > DW_AT_low_pc > > DW_AT_low_high > > > > (3) LexicalBlock > > DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract lexical block) > > DW_AT_low_pc > > DW_AT_low_high > > > > (4) DW_TAG_variable > > DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y") > > DW_AT_location > > > > > > This would be the optimal solution if GDB would support the > "DW_AT_abstract_origin" attribute on lexical block. > > The idea of having this variable on lexical block is to inform the > debugger that all attributes and (direct) children of the abstract lexical > block are available for the inline/concrete lexical block as well. > > > > GDB does not support the above proposal and I suggest to open a bug on GDB > debugger to support this. > > Do you think otherwise? > > > > *Workaround solution* > > In the meanwhile and till GDB implement the above requirement, we can > implement a different approach for case (b), that will allows GDB to > provide information on all entities in the inline/concrete function (except > for types). > > The abstract function will still be the same, however the inline/concrete > functions will be changed as follow: > > > > (1) DW_TAG_subprogram (concrete) > > DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo") > > DW_AT_low_pc > > DW_AT_low_high > > > > (2) LexicalBlock > > DW_AT_low_pc > > DW_AT_low_high > > > > (3) DW_TAG_imported_module > > DW_AT_import (=> N) > > > > (3) DW_TAG_imported_declaration > > DW_AT_import (=> N::D) > > > > (3) DW_TAG_variable > > DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y") > > DW_AT_location > > > > (3) DW_TAG_variable > > DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract static variable "z") > > > > > > (1) DW_TAG_subprogram > > DW_AT_name (= "bar") > > DW_AT_low_pc > > DW_AT_low_high > > > > (2) DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine (inline) > > DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract function "foo") > > DW_AT_low_pc > > DW_AT_low_high > > > > (3) LexicalBlock > > DW_AT_low_pc > > DW_AT_low_high > > > > (4) DW_TAG_imported_module > > DW_AT_import (=> N) > > > > (4) DW_TAG_imported_declaration > > DW_AT_import (=> N::D) > > > > (4) DW_TAG_variable > > DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract variable "y") > > DW_AT_location > > > > (4) DW_TAG_variable > > DW_AT_abstract_origin (=> abstract static variable "z") > > > > > > I already have an implementation for this proposal and the changes between > the optimal solution, which needs support from GDB, and the workaround > solution is minimal. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/20160119/3c882b92/attachment.html>