llvm dev - Aug 2020 - Switch to ld.bfd tombstone behavior by default

Honestly even though I do understand the debug information I'm with you and
one reason why I'm pushing for the same reset that you are. There are a lot
of threads, it's fairly confusing what has been done where and other than
some fairly widespread breakage among early users of lld (i.e. a short time
from commit to use) it's unclear what the plan is to roll this out
effectively across releases.

Ray: Can you summarize what is where, what you'd like the plan is, and what
is stopping is from doing this in the incremental fashion that's been
requested? I understand that's adding work to an already long thread, but
there's so much going on now that it seems like resetting back to default
for lld and then moving forward is going to be the process that's easiest
understood for everyone.

Thanks!

-eric

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:13 PM Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>
wrote:
> My apologies, I didn't realize D84825 now restores the original
> behavior. The review thread is a bit hard to follow :-)
>
> From the change description it still sounds like .debug_ranges &
> .debug_loc tombstones are changing to -2 though? Or is that what we
> had before?
>
> To be clear, I'm not familiar with the technical details here, I'm
> just keen that we end up in a known-good state.
>
> Also the patch is marked "release/11.x only". Normally we land
changes
> on trunk first so it gets proper testing, and then merged to the
> branch. I'd like that to be the case here too.
>
> I'd also like to see Eric or David sign off, since they understand the
> debug info, and I don't.
>
>
> To be honest, after writing this reply I still don't understand why
> we're not just reverting the patches, merging that to 11.x, and
> sending out a new patch where the desired behavior going forward can
> be hashed out.
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 8:47 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com>
wrote:
> >
> > As I mentioned in the thread (to many people who don't have time
to
> > read the discussions), pushing https://reviews.llvm.org/D84825
> > restores the original behavior.
> > The same effect as one would get by reverting all related patches. If
> > someone gives me an approval, I'll push it immediately. I already
get
> > verbal LGTM from Peter.
> >
> > > With respect I think the "request for changes" blocked
the change and
> I am not inclined to agree we would otherwise be at an impasse without the
> "request for changes".
> > I would likely get an "Accept Revision" or a just textual
"LGTM", even
> > if there is a conditional request that ".debug_* should use 0 as
well,
> > like GNU ld".
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 11:27 AM Hans Wennborg <hans at
chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > +the people who fell off the cc list for some reason
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 8:24 PM Hans Wennborg <hans at
chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Can we please just revert back to what we had before until
the
> > > > discussion about the desired behaviour and how to get there
reaches a
> > > > conclusion?
> > > >
> > > > In particular, I would like to merge that revert to the 11.x
branch.
> > > > At this point in the release process, I'm not keen on
taking any
> patch
> > > > that changes the behavior to something that hasn't been
well tested
> > > > from sitting in trunk for a while.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 8:55 PM Petr Hosek via llvm-dev
> > > > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I can weigh in as a maintainer of the Clang toolchain
on a project
> (Fuchsia) that lives at HEAD. We are still dealing with the fallout of this
> change and our toolchain roll has been blocked since it landed, while
> normally we would roll the toolchain every week. All the issues in Breakpad
> that were affecting us seem to have been addressed, but there are issues in
> other tools that we still haven't addressed and we're still
debugging. This
> has been difficult because each of the issues we found so far have
> manifested differently and we had to do bisect multiple times, because we
> weren't sure whether it was introduced by this one or some other
change.
> Furthermore, as the time since our last roll increases while we're
blocked,
> the range over which we have to bisect is also extending making this
> process more and more time consuming.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fangrui suggested passing the appropriate flag in our
build, but
> that's just infeasible for us. I cannot go into details, but there are
too
> many projects, too many repositories, too many build systems involved.
> Doing such a coordinated change would likely take longer than addressing
> all the issues. We have considered passing the flag in the Fuchsia driver
> (which we control) but this doesn't entirely address the issue because
some
> of the failures we're seeing are in the host binaries (we use the same
> toolchain for both the host and the target) so we would need to make the
> same change in the Linux driver as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that this change is the right long-term
direction, but I
> wish this was communicated better and it was done as an opt-in rather than
> opt-out to give us enough time to iron out all the issues without the
> stress.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 6:32 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng via
llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 2020-07-29, Eric Christopher wrote:
> > > > >> >I think the arguments are largely compatibility
for software
> that's already
> > > > >> >deployed and can't easily upgrade, and
wanting to ensure a
> larger time
> > > > >> >frame for migration with a fallback if things
go wrong. A bridge
> basically
> > > > >> >from what we had to where we'd like to be.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >I think we also need to make the change in
mainline lld as well
> - as you
> > > > >> >might know it's occasionally easier to
upgrade a linker than to
> upgrade a
> > > > >> >debugger. I don't have any strong opinions
on what we should
> name the
> > > > >> >command line option, but something that makes
it unnecessary to
> actually
> > > > >> >know the values you want to put in would make
it easier.
> > > > >> >-debug-comdat-relocation-filler=compat, bfd,
<something> (yes,
> that's not
> > > > >> >great, but it's at least a start :)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >-eric
> > > > >>
> > > > >> .debug_* => 0 looks good to me and I'd like
to make the change
> because some
> > > > >> users in this thread expressed preference, while
some are
> bystanders, and I don't want
> > > > >> to be the only one on the side opposite to the side
of users
> expressing preferece.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> An argument I have in mind but haven't raised
is that I don't
> want releases or
> > > > >> HEAD to change behaviors too many times. This was
one argument I
> did not want
> > > > >> .debug_* => 0 for the upcoming release and
.debug_* => -1 for a
> next one: there are 2
> > > > >> behavior changes rather than one: old LLD: addend,
LLD 11: 0, LLD
> 11: -1.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >I think we also need to make the change in
mainline lld as well
> - as you
> > > > >> >might know it's occasionally easier to
upgrade a linker than to
> upgrade a
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This is now a new request about HEAD behavior. I
would honestly
> be a bit
> > > > >> concerned about making such kind of back-and-forth
change. This
> would invalidate
> > > > >> some comments people have already contributed to
some projects
> (LLD since D81784
> > > > >> use -1 ......) Do we know who are the other LLD
HEAD users? I
> still want to
> > > > >> remind people that so far the only problematic
behaviors were
> caused by
> > > > >> .debug_line: -1, not any other .debug_*. With lack
of more input,
> I'd want to
> > > > >> avoid changes mitigating hypothetical issues. It is
possible that
> making more
> > > > >> revert-restore changes could make the situation
more confusing.
> Ultimately,
> > > > >> this is an open source project and we make changes
for the
> interests of
> > > > >> thecommunity.  Maybe it is time for more folks to
share opinions?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If I had to make a name, I would call it
> --dead-reloc-in-debug={bfd,new}, not -z
> > > > >> as we don't expect GNU ld to adopt. The option
comes with a large
> notice that
> > > > >> this option will go away. Moreover, the user has to
look up the
> semantics of
> > > > >> 'bfd'. And the 'bfd' semantics may
get stale if GNU ld updates
> its behaviors.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We can also take it from another perspective, do
the opt-in
> options look
> > > > >> intimidating just because they are too long?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_ranges=0xfffffffffffffffe'
> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_loc=0xfffffffffffffffe'
> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_*=0xffffffffffffffff'
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We can support signed integers:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_ranges=-2'
> > > > >> -z 'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_loc=-2'
> > > > >> -z 'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_*=-1'
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Three options seem too long?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We can support comma separated list:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -z
> 'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_ranges=-2,.debug_loc=-2,.debug_*=-1'
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm glad that people raised a request for a
easy-to-toggle
> option, but I'd only
> > > > >> be more comfortable accepting it if there are
sufficiently strong
> reasons for
> > > > >> it, with the acknowledgement that the option will
be another GNU
> ld/gold/LLD
> > > > >> difference (-z dead-reloc-in-nonalloc= has somewhat
a larger
> chance that it can
> > > > >> be adopted by other linkers) and will go away in
two or three
> releases.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:00 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng
<
> maskray at google.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Created https://reviews.llvm.org/D84825 to
be used for
> release/11.x
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I haven't seen a strong argument for
changing other .debug_*
> but in
> > > > >> >> any case I don't want to continue
debating on this topic.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> * .debug_ranges & .debug_loc: -2
(lld<11: 0+addend)
> > > > >> >> * .debug_*: 0 (lld<11: 0+addend, lld
HEAD: -1)
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:47 PM David
Blaikie <
> dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:11 AM
Robinson, Paul <
> paul.robinson at sony.com>
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > I still think that we do bfd
locs with a decent option to
> change for
> > > > >> >> at least the current release and sources
and then, once we're
> a little more
> > > > >> >> certain we have everything that might want
to parse dwarf (say
> by working
> > > > >> >> with dwarf-discuss), we can change the
default.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Given what’s been found, I think
Eric/Dave are correct, use
> bfd
> > > > >> >> behavior by default with an option to do
the new thing.  The
> option can be
> > > > >> >> coded to let Sony (SCE debugger tuning)
have it on by default.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Bringing it up on dwarf-discuss
seems like a good idea too,
> you can
> > > > >> >> refer to
http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=200609.1 as
> part of that.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Thanks for the pointer! Posted here:
> > > > >> >>
>
http://lists.dwarfstd.org/pipermail/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org/2020-July/004683.html
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> --paulr
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> From: Eric Christopher
<echristo at gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> >> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2020
12:56 AM
> > > > >> >> >> To: Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at
google.com>
> > > > >> >> >> Cc: Hans Wennborg <hans at
chromium.org>;
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Alexey
> > > > >> >> Lapshin <a.v.lapshin at mail.ru>;
George Rimar <
> grimar at accesssoftek.com>;
> > > > >> >> Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at
sony.com>; Adrian Prantl <
> aprantl at apple.com>;
> > > > >> >> Jonas Devlieghere <jdevlieghere at
apple.com>; James Henderson <
> > > > >> >> jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk>; Peter
Smith <
> Peter.Smith at arm.com>; David
> > > > >> >> Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>;
Pavel Labath <pavel at labath.sk>
> > > > >> >> >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Switch to
ld.bfd tombstone behavior
> by default
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> Hi Ray :)
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> While I understand the desire to
say "we've updated
> everything we've
> > > > >> >> found" the problem is that we
don't know that we've found even
> much of the
> > > > >> >> uses or can guarantee that people can
upgrade, say their gdb
> or breakpad,
> > > > >> >> as fast as their compiler. Even worse
it's a change in
> behavior without
> > > > >> >> much notice at all or even a particularly
friendly way to
> recognize what
> > > > >> >> they should do to fix it.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> I still think that we do bfd locs
with a decent option to
> change for at
> > > > >> >> least the current release and sources and
then, once we're a
> little more
> > > > >> >> certain we have everything that might want
to parse dwarf (say
> by working
> > > > >> >> with dwarf-discuss), we can change the
default.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> -eric
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 7:33 PM
Fāng-ruì Sòng <
> maskray at google.com>
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> From my understanding the
breakpad bug was also only
> related to
> > > > >> >> .debug_line and has been fixed by
> > > > >> >>
> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/breakpad/breakpad/+/2317730
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > a)
.debug_ranges&.debug_loc => -2, .debug_line => 0,
> other .debug_*
> > > > >> >> -> -1
> > > > >> >> >> > b)
.debug_ranges&.debug_loc => -2, other .debug_* => 0
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> I am still of the opinion that we
should just do a), not b).
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 9:33 AM
Hans Wennborg <
> hans at chromium.org>
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:12 PM
Fangrui Song <
> maskray at google.com>
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > On 2020-07-24, Hans Wennborg
via llvm-dev wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > >Sounds good to me from a
release perspective.
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > I think we need more input
from the triage of
> > > > >> >> >> >
> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2291352
> > > > >> >> >> > whether it is just
.debug_line or .debug_*
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> The issue we hit in Chromium is
tracked here:
> > > > >> >> >>
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1105559 Doesn't
> > > > >> >> >> look like it has any more info at
the moment.
> > > > >> >> >>
> > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at
7:53 AM Eric Christopher via
> llvm-dev
> > > > >> >> >> > ><llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >> Hi All,
> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >> In general I think
we should adopt Dave's plan here.
> The number of
> > > > >> >> consumers that can (and have) been caught
off guard by this
> change is just
> > > > >> >> too high.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >> At the very least I
think we should move this to opt
> in to the new
> > > > >> >> tombstoning behavior by default and at
most migrate to bfd's
> behavior for
> > > > >> >> both the current release and in the
current tree. If we want
> to make this
> > > > >> >> sort of change in the future by default I
think we're going to
> need to
> > > > >> >> provide release notes about this and do
aggressive outreach
> towards the
> > > > >> >> consumers we do know before making the
change. If anyone wants
> to drive
> > > > >> >> that effort I'll happily provide any
help or assistance in
> getting you in
> > > > >> >> touch with at least the consumers I know
about.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >> This change and the
need for it is also probably worth
> a quick
> > > > >> >> message to dwarf-discuss at dwarfstd.org
as well. Most of the
> major
> > > > >> >> consumers and producers are on that list
and it's probably one
> of the
> > > > >> >> easiest ways to get this change out there.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >> Any strong
objections to this path in the meantime?
> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >> Thanks!
> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >> -eric
> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >> On Tue, Jul 21,
2020 at 12:18 PM David Blaikie via
> llvm-dev <
> > > > >> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> On Tue, Jul 21,
2020 at 5:34 AM Alexey Lapshin
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> <alapshin at
accesssoftek.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >On
Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:32 AM Alexey Lapshin
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
><alapshin at accesssoftek.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 1:55 PM Alexey Lapshin <
> > > > >> >> a.v.lapshin at mail.ru> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >Пятница, 17 июля 2020, 19:42 +03:00 от David
> Blaikie <
> > > > >> >> dblaikie at gmail.com>:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:03 AM Fangrui
> Song <
> > > > >> >> maskray at google.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> Thanks for the write-up!
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> On 2020-07-16, David Blaikie wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >In short: Perhaps we should switch lld to
> the
> > > > >> >> bfd-style tombstoning
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >behavior for a release or two, letting
> users opt-in
> > > > >> >> to testing with the new
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >-1/-2 tombstoning in the interim, before
> switching to
> > > > >> >> the new tombstone by
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >default (while still having the flag to
> switch back
> > > > >> >> when users find
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >surprise places that can't handle the new
> behavior).
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >In long:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >https://reviews.llvm.org/D81784 and
> follow-on
> > > > >> >> patches modified the behavior
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >of lld with regards to resolving
> relocations from
> > > > >> >> debug sections to dead
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >code (either comdat deduplicated, or
> gc-sections use).
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >A very quick summary of the situation:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >Original Behavior:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > - bfd: 1 for debug_ranges(0 would
> prematurely
> > > > >> >> terminate the list), 0
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > elsewhere
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > - gold/lld: 0+addend everywhere
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >Limitations/bugs:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > - bfd/gold/lld
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > - doesn't support 0 as a valid
> executable address
> > > > >> >> without ambiguities
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > - gold/lld
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > - ambiguities with large gc'd functions
> combined
> > > > >> >> with a .text mapping
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > that starts in relative low addresses
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > - premature debug_range termination with
> zero-length
> > > > >> >> functions (Clang
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > produces these with
> __builtin_unreachable or
> > > > >> >> non-void return
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >type functions
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > without a return statement)
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >New behavior:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > - -2 for DWARFv4 debug_loc, debug_ranges
> (-1 is a
> > > > >> >> base address specifier
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > there)
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > - -1 elsewhere
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > - linker flag to customize to other
> values if desired
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >Known issues:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > - lldb's line table parsing can't handle
> -1 well at
> > > > >> >> all (essentially
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > unusable)
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> Pavel Labath will fix this soon
> > > > >> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D83957
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> This is an unhandled address-space
> wraparound problem.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> This pattern is potentially common - and
> other
> > > > >> >> downstream DWARF
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> consumers might make similar line table
> handling
> > > > >> >> mistakes.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >That's the thing - I'm not sure we can
> really classify
> > > > >> >> them as
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >"mistakes". I think bfd.ld's tombstoning
> behavior is
> > > > >> >> about the only
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >thing we can reasonably say DWARF consumers
> should
> > > > >> >> /probably/ be
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >expected to handle - and I'd imagine in many
> cases they
> > > > >> >> haven't been
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >written intentionally to handle it, but
> whatever
> > > > >> >> behavior they have
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >has accidentally been sufficient for their
> needs.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > - gdb's line table parsing ends up with
> different
> > > > >> >> handling when breaking
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> > on gc'd functions (minor functionality
> issue)
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> This is just a behavior difference, not
> affecting
> > > > >> >> users.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> It did break a test if linked with LLD (gdb
> > > > >> >> intrinsically has lots of
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> failing tests even if built with GCC+GNU
> ld).
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> Previous behavior (when an address is
> zero): a
> > > > >> >> breakpoint on a
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> --gc-sections discarded function will be
> redirected to
> > > > >> >> a larger line
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> number with debug info, even if that line
> can be an
> > > > >> >> unrelated different
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> function.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> New behavior is that the breakpoint is on a
> > > > >> >> wrapped-around small address.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> GDB 9.3 will restore the previous behavior
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> (
> > > > >> >>
>
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=a8caed5d7faa639a1e6769eba551d15d8ddd9510
> > > > >> >> )
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >I think there's enough risk in this work
> (even given
> > > > >> >> the small number of
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >bugs found so far), given there's a
> pretty wide array
> > > > >> >> of debug info
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >consumers out there, that we should
> change lld's
> > > > >> >> default to match the
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >long-lived bfd strategy. This would
> address my
> > > > >> >> original motivation for
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >raising all this (empty functions
> prematurely
> > > > >> >> terminating the list), while
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >letting users who want to experiment with
> it, or need
> > > > >> >> it (like Alexey), can
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> >opt-in to the -1/-2 behavior.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> I think we can only confidently say that
> there is
> > > > >> >> enough risk in using
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> tombstone value -1 in .debug_line, but I'd
> not say
> > > > >> >> tombstone value -1 in
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >> other .debug_* can cause problems.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >Given how many DWARF parsers we've had to
> cleanup or
> > > > >> >> migrate off in
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >transitioning to DWARFv5 inside Google, I
> think that's a
> > > > >> >> fair bit of
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >evidence the set of parsers isn't as
> narrow/closed as
> > > > >> >> we'd like and
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >thus the number of places that might have
> issues isn't
> > > > >> >> known/easily
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >exhaustively tested. So I'm not so concerned
> about the
> > > > >> >> bugs we've
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >seen, but what that might indicate about the
> things that
> > > > >> >> we don't know
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >about and can't test (because we don't know
> about them).
> > > > >> >> (of course,
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >the flipside of that is that if we don't
> know about
> > > > >> >> them, we can't
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >tell people who own them to go check if they
> work with
> > > > >> >> this opt-in
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >feature - so they'll break whenever we turn
> this on by
> > > > >> >> default - but
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >perhaps in the interim we can get at least a
> few big LLD
> > > > >> >> customers to
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >deploy the feature and flush out some of the
> issues -
> > > > >> >> happy for Google
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >to use this internally, hopefully we can
> encourage Apple
> > > > >> >> folks, Sony
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >of course already has this semantic so
> nothing to find
> > > > >> >> there most
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> >likely - Chromium, maybe Firefox, etc)
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> From the other side — when we already
> switched new
> > > > >> >> behavior ON as default —
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> then it is easier to discover all these
> unknown cases. We
> > > > >> >> have an option restoring
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> old behavior(which should be fine for all of
> the current
> > > > >> >> users). Thus, everybody
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> who needs old behavior is able to continue
> using it.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>The cost to those users figuring out that it's
> a problem
> > > > >> >> and finding
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>the flags/adding them, etc, is non-zero.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>But, yes, as I said - eventually some of that
> will happen,
> > > > >> >> sooner or
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>later. But reducing how much of it happens is
> valuable too.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >> I
agree. Reducing the impact on customers is
> important.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
Though in this case, as you said, it would be
> done
> > > > >> >> anyway(sooner or later).
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
Finally, I do not know what is more important:
> a) get
> > > > >> >> feedback faster with
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
the cost of involved users and requiring them to
> make efforts
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
to figure out the problem. or b) test with a
> smaller set of
> > > > >> >> users,
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
find more problematic cases, make new tombstone
> value to be
> > > > >> >> default later.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >> I
am kind of preferring a). But, b) is more safe
> and is OK.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> That makes transition more understandable.
> All problems
> > > > >> >> would be explicitly seen. Then,
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> If we will know about new problems - we could
> adapt the
> > > > >> >> current solution. Similar to this
>suggestion:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> a) .debug_ranges&.debug_loc => -2,
> .debug_line => 0,
> > > > >> >> other .debug_* -> -1
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>The issue I have with this is that it's
> reflective of the
> > > > >> >> known
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>breakage in some tools that happen to have a
> quick
> > > > >> >> turnaround/feedback
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>- and assumes all the other sections are
> significantly less
> > > > >> >> likely to
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>have problems with this format - and I don't
> think we have
> > > > >> >> enough data
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>to make that estimate.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
We could extend that rule when/if new problems
> become known.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
Or, customers could fix their code or use option
> returning
> > > > >> >> old behavior
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
and it would probably not be necessary to extend
> the rule.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>I think having a clear flag for bfd behavior or
> new
> > > > >> >> behavior would be
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>good, keeping it bfd-by-default for now,
> evangelizing
> > > > >> >> (patch notes,
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>outreach to other projects and tool developers)
> the new
> > > > >> >> functionality
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>& then changing the default shortly after an
> LLVM release
> > > > >> >> (perhaps 12
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>- but perhaps longer) to give it time to bake
> for
> > > > >> >> trunk-following
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>users (ample time for them to pick it up on
> their schedule,
> > > > >> >> see what
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>other tools might break, whether they're
> isolated enough to
> > > > >> >> expect a
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>quick turnaround or whether we should get them
> updated and
> > > > >> >> then wait a
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>while longer.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
yes, doing clear flag for bfd behavior or new
> behavior,
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
and keep it bfd-by-default for now would be OK
> and is more
> > > > >> >> safe.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> This would help while dwarf users are
> preparing their
> > > > >> >> code to the new solution.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>> Is option restoring old behavior not enough
> to solve
> > > > >> >> problems caused by new tombstone
>value?
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>I don't personally think it is enough - given
> some of the
> > > > >> >> known
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>breakage - I think that points to a fair bit of
> reasonably
> > > > >> >> possible
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>unknown breakage. Having a few big (like Apple
> and Google)
> > > > >> >> users
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>switch over by default & potentially flush out
> a few more
> > > > >> >> issues (or
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>not -but build confidence that there aren't
> more issues) I
> > > > >> >> think is an
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>appropriate way to roll out a change like this.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>(minor doubt: I wonder how well the bfd
> tombstoning works
> > > > >> >> in DWARFv5
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>(rnglists/loclists) or in debug_range/debug_loc
> that uses
> > > > >> >> base address
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>specifiers, where the zero-without-addend
> doesn't have a
> > > > >> >> chance to
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>make an empty range (because it's not a
> start/end pair,
> > > > >> >> it's a
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>start+offset pair - so the offset remains
> non-zero)... if
> > > > >> >> bfd
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>tombstoning breaks DWARFv5 parsing (or base
> address
> > > > >> >> specifiers in
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>range/loc) in common consumers I might be more
> inclined to
> > > > >> >> support
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>enabling new tombstoning by default sooner
> (though if we
> > > > >> >> could enable
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>it just for DWARFv5 that might be nice - but
> not practical,
> > > > >> >> since the
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>linker doesn't know what DWARF it's linking &
> could be
> > > > >> >> linking
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
>multiple versions))
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >> -
From the point of view overlapping address
> ranges,
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
both bfd-solution(using 1) and old lld
> solution(using 0) are
> > > > >> >> equal.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >gold
and lld's solution was a bit more complicated
> than using
> > > > >> >> zero (&
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>bfd's solution uses 1 in debug_ranges, but not in
> other debug
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>sections). lld and gold use 0+addend in ranges.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > right. I
am talking about the same(though assumed
> that context
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > instead of
detailed explanation). it should be
> > > > >> >> "bfd-solution(using 1
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > for
debug_ranges) and lld/gold solution(using
> 0+addend)".
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > Thank you
for pointing into that.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >0
alone in ranges
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >would
be more problematic than any of the other
> deployed
> > > > >> >> solutions,
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>because it would lead to the debug_ranges
> contributions being
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>terminated early (0, 0 terminates the list - so
> debug_ranges
> > > > >> >> for a CU
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >with
one gc'd function mid-way through the range
> list would
> > > > >> >> drop the
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >rest
of the range lit) - that's why bfd uses 1 for
> > > > >> >> debug_ranges rather
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >than 0
which it uses elsewhere (though the same
> fix should,
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>technically, be applied to debug_loc too for the
> same reasons
> > > > >> >> as
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>debug_ranges). the 0+addend approach of gold/lld
> works OK
> > > > >> >> (except for
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >the
low address overlap) except when there's a
> zero-length
> > > > >> >> function,
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >then
0+addend == 0 for the end of the range, andy
> ou get a 0,0
> > > > >> >> entry
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >with
the premature range list termination issues.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
for the "start+offset pair" case they could
> result in
> > > > >> >> overlapping address ranges.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >Not
quite - the way bfd does things, at least in
> debug_ranges
> > > > >> >> without
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >base
address specifiers (bit hard to isolate for a
> consumer,
> > > > >> >> really -
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >though
they could special case zero base
> addresses... sort of)
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >empty
ranges are (1, 1) - they're actually empty.
> Whereas lld's
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>approach ends up with (0+addend, 0+addend) which
> is usually
> > > > >> >> (0, size)
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >which
has issues with overlap on systems that have
> a valid low
> > > > >> >> address
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >range
(or if you have sufficiently large
> functions).
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > There is a
case when size of address range is set
> not by
> > > > >> >> relocated value but by constant value:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > DWARF5:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
DW_RLE_startx_length
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
DW_RLE_start_length
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > {address
of deleted code, length}
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > {address
of existing code, length}
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > DWARF4:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > base
address selection entry: {-1, address of
> deleted code}
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > following
range list entry: {0, length}
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > base
address selection entry: {-1, address of
> existing code}
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > following
range list entry: {0, length}
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > In these
cases linker do not see the length of
> address range
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > and could
not change it(using 1, or 0, or 0+addend)
> to be zero
> > > > >> >> length
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > address
range. Thus address ranges could overlap.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > So in both
DWARF5 and DWARF4 there are cases when
> address ranges
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > could be
overlapped and it could not be solved
> without new
> > > > >> >> meaning for tombstone value.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >> -
From the point of view correct parsing of
> DWARF 5 - it
> > > > >> >> looks like they are equally good.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >Yep,
DWARFv5 is more complicated - bfd's approach
> would be
> > > > >> >> marginally
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >better
even for addr+offset encodings in
> debug_rnglists -
> > > > >> >> since it'd
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >always
produce a 0 for the addr, whereas
> gold/lld's behavior
> > > > >> >> can in
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >some
cases (eg: "void f1() { }
> __attribute__((nodebug)) void
> > > > >> >> f2() { }
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >void
f3() { }" with -fno-function-sections -
> you'll end up
> > > > >> >> with the
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >range
for f3 starting at a non-zero addend - this
> debug info
> > > > >> >> will be
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >worse
for bfd/ld (if the DWARF for this object was
> included,
> > > > >> >> but the
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >whole
.text section was discarded (eg: maybe
> there's a global
> > > > >> >> variable
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >in
this object which is linked in, but -gc-section
> is still
> > > > >> >> able to
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>discard the whole .text section as unreferenced)
> then
> > > > >> >> gold/lld's
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>approach would make f3 unidentifiable as dead code
> (because it
> > > > >> >> doesn't
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >have a
tombstone start) but bfd's approach would
> work
> > > > >> >> (assuming zero
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>isn't a valid address))
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > I see.
thanks.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >> -
From the point of view correct parsing of
> DWARF 4 - it
> > > > >> >> looks bfd-solution(using 1)
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
is better than the old lld solution(using 0).
> When range
> > > > >> >> list entry contains
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
addresses(start+end) which should be relocated
> and for the
> > > > >> >> zero-length functions,
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
bfd-solution would result in range list entry:
> {1, 1}, while
> > > > >> >> old lld solution
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
would result in {0, 0}, and match with the end
> of list entry.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
That is the original problem that started this
> thread.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >Only
comes up for zero-length functions, because
> gold/lld's
> > > > >> >> approach
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >was
0+addend, not straight 0.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > right. for
zero-length functions.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
Though it looks like there still exist case when
> range list
> > > > >> >> could be terminated earlier:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
base address selection entry: {-1, address of
> deleted code}
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
following range list entry: {0, 0} << points to
> the same
> > > > >> >> address as set by base address selection
entry and has zero
> size.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>That's a bug in the producer (though a good point
> - I've
> > > > >> >> probably made
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >that
bug in LLVM) - the linker can't solve that
> problem, since
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >linker
can't touch the literal unrelocated 0, 0.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
after linker resolved relocations it would look
> like this,
> > > > >> >> for bfd case:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
base address selection entry: {-1, 1}
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
following range list entry: {0, 0} <<<<<<<<<<<
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
So there still exists {0,0} entry which could be
> considered
> > > > >> >> as the end of list entry.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
But old lld solution has the same problem, thus
> it would not
> > > > >> >> be new.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >> -
Additionally, AFAIK gdb has special processing
> for
> > > > >> >> overlapped address
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >>
ranges starting from 0. Using bfd tombstone
> value could
> > > > >> >> break that processing - I would check it.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >Not
sure I understand - presumably gdb's special
> processing is
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>intended to work with bfd's tombstoning, since
> it's been the
> > > > >> >> most
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>common/prolific unix linker, the one intended to
> work with gdb
> > > > >> >> (they
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >exist
in the same repository) for decades, right?
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > I think I
misunderstood this: "I wonder how well
> the bfd
> > > > >> >> tombstoning works in DWARFv5
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
(rnglists/loclists)". I read it as we would like to
> use bfd
> > > > >> >> tombstoning(1 for ranges)
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > for
rnglists/loclists also.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > So, right.
bfd's tombstoning works correctly with
> gdb until 1
> > > > >> >> is not used
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > for
rnglists/loclists as tombstone value.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> Not quite
parsing this, but I think we're on the same
> page - that
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> bfd's
tombstoning "1 for debug_ranges/debug_loc, 0
> (not 0+addend,
> > > > >> >> but
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> absolute 0) for
everything else (including
> debug_loclists and
> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
debug_rnglists)" is probably the most likely to work
> for gdb,
> > > > >> >> since
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> it's been
deployed for a long time.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> - Dave
> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> PS: Fair point
about base address specifiers being
> able to
> > > > >> >> produce 0,0
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> entries -
wouldn't mind fixing that in LLVM if I knew
> of an easy
> > > > >> >> way
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> to test at
compile-time whether the difference
> between two labels
> > > > >> >> was
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> zero, then skip
that entry in the lists entirely.
> Would save
> > > > >> >> space and
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> address the
original issue I had with debug_ranges
> terminating
> > > > >> >> early.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> (should've
thought about that much earlier than my
> more alarmist
> > > > >> >> "oh
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> deer, we need
to fundamentally change how linkers
> resolve
> > > > >> >> relocations
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> because
everything's been broken and we just didn't
> realize it" -
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> fixing the
compiler not to produce zero-length ranges
> would've
> > > > >> >> been
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> less risky
& probably still worth doing - though
> addressing the
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> broader issue
to help with your situation of 0 as a
> valid address
> > > > >> >> I
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> think is still
good too)
> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > Alexey.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> With consideration for satefy for the
> upcoming
> > > > >> >> release/11.x, we can make
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> two choices:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> a) .debug_ranges&.debug_loc => -2,
> .debug_line => 0,
> > > > >> >> other .debug_* -> -1
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> b) .debug_ranges&.debug_loc => -2, other
> .debug_* => 0
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> Delaying .debug_line => -1 for one or two
> release sounds
> > > > >> >> good to me.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> So LLD 11 or 12 linked binaries can be
> debugged by LLDB
> > > > >> >> 10. This is a
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> nice property.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> This write-up proposes b), but I'd say a) is
> likely
> > > > >> >> sufficient. With the
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> available information, I cannot yet say that
> a) will
> > > > >> >> have more risk.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>Risk is about the unknowns - and it still
> seems like a lot
> > > > >> >> of
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>unknowns. While there are probably many more
> consumers
> > > > >> >> that read
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>.debug_line than other sections, reading
> debug_info (for
> > > > >> >> instance) is
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>necessary for inline frames in symbolizing -
> still
> > > > >> >> probably one of the
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>most common uses of DWARF I'd guess. (what
> about stack
> > > > >> >> unwinding using
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>debug_frame? that'd worry me a bit if anyone
> got /that/
> > > > >> >> wrong because
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>of this change)
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> > - chromium/firefox have some tools that
> were broken:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >
> > > > >> >>
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1102223#c5
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> This is potentially related to other
> .debug_* (not
> > > > >> >> .debug_line)
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> I hope Chromium developers can chime in
> here:) The
> > > > >> >> breakage was
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> unfortunate but I don't know how we could
> have avoided
> > > > >> >> that. IMHO this
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> is no different from "clang started to emit
> a new
> > > > >> >> DW_FORM_* and a
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> postprocessing tool of .debug chokes on
> that" Whether we
> > > > >> >> want to
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> suppress that particular DW_FORM_*
> definitely should
> > > > >> >> depend on how
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> likely it can cause problems, but we can't
> yet say we
> > > > >> >> have to hold off
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> on a feature for a solved (precisely,
> mitigated) problem.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>LLVM has no custom forms and I'd be super
> cautious about
> > > > >> >> adding any
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>that were on by default because of how bad
> that breakage
> > > > >> >> would be.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>I'm not so concerned about the problems we
> know - but what
> > > > >> >> they tell
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>us about the problems that might arise from
> use cases we
> > > > >> >> don't know.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>All the other projects out there that might
> have custom
> > > > >> >> DWARF parsers
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>to do some ad-hoc things.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>(also, ultimately - given how far-reaching
> this is, I
> > > > >> >> think we'll want
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>some tidier flags that are more user-focussed.
> I'd hope
> > > > >> >> for a flag
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>that gives BFD-like semantics (though I'd be
> OK with
> > > > >> >> fixing debug_loc
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>(using 1 instead of 0) to work the same as
> debug_ranges
> > > > >> >> while we're
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>there - a minor divergence from BFD, but
> highly likely to
> > > > >> >> not cause
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>problems/fall out naturally from a simple
> implementation
> > > > >> >> of parsing
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>that section) - something that's been in-use
> and tested by
> > > > >> >> basically
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>everyone for decades. And another flag for the
> new
> > > > >> >> semantics (-2 for
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>debug_loc/debug_ranges, -1 everywhere else).
> Customizable
> > > > >> >> per-section
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>expression-based support I think is a recipe
> for platform
> > > > >> >> divergence &
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>I'd rather it not be available/supported at
> all, but if
> > > > >> >> you really
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>want to keep it in, I'd at least rather it not
> be the
> > > > >> >> feature we
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>promote to users about how they can test/opt
> in/out of the
> > > > >> >> behavior
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>when they're seeing breakages or want to test
> the future
> > > > >> >> semantics)
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >I'm not sure how to get the word out to
> DWARF consumers
> > > > >> >> that they should
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >consider this new experimental behavior.
> Ray's done a
> > > > >> >> good job
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >evangelizing/discussing this with gdb and
> lldb at least
> > > > >> >> - and of course
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >having turned it on by default briefly has
> found some
> > > > >> >> users (like Chromium)
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >that we probably wouldn't have found no
> matter how long
> > > > >> >> we left this as an
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >experimental option... so some things are
> going to
> > > > >> >> break when we switch no
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >matter what.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> Thank you for following up with some GNU
> folks on their
> > > > >> >> lists!
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> If folks want to follow along the thread:
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>>
> > > > >> >>
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2020-June/111376.html
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> We have informed binutils, elfutils-devel
> (elfutils has
> > > > >> >> a few debug
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> tools) and gdb. I don't recall that anyone
> has thought
> > > > >> >> about problems
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> with a tombstone value.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >P.S: Sony's already been using the -1
> technique with
> > > > >> >> their debugger and
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >linker for a while, so they may want to
> keep this on by
> > > > >> >> default for SCE -
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >but I'm not sure how to do that in-tree.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >Clang doesn't know which lld
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >version it's running, so whether the flag
> can be
> > > > >> >> specified, I would think?
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >(so it'd be hard to have Clang go "if SCE
> and LLD, pass
> > > > >> >> the flag to use
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >-1", I think) - if there is a way to make
> that decision
> > > > >> >> in the compiler
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>.> >driver+linker, then we'd have a question
> of "default
> > > > >> >> new behavior except
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >when tuning for LLDB and GDB" or "default
> bfd behavior
> > > > >> >> except when tuning
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> >for SCE".
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> I've been involed in another thread on
> SHF_LINK_ORDER (
> > > > >> >>
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2020-
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>July/112415.html ).
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> We may need a way to tell codegen about the
> used linker.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> pcc proposed -mbinutils-version= - This is
> nice in that
> > > > >> >> some MC
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> decisions related to -fno-integrated-as can
> use this
> > > > >> >> option as well.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> jyknight proposed -mlinker-version= and
> syntax like
> > > > >> >> -fuse-ld=bfd:2.34
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>>
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> This may get more complex if the generated
> object file
> > > > >> >> want to be linked
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> with more than one linker. This discussion
> probably
> > > > >> >> deserves its own
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
>> thread.
> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > > >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > > > >>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > > > >
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 宋方睿
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200805/7dfcd7b9/attachment-0001.html>

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:32 PM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Honestly even though I do understand the debug information I'm with you
and one reason why I'm pushing for the same reset that you are. There are a
lot of threads, it's fairly confusing what has been done where and other
than some fairly widespread breakage among early users of lld (i.e. a short time
from commit to use) it's unclear what the plan is to roll this out
effectively across releases.
>
> Ray: Can you summarize what is where, what you'd like the plan is, and
what is stopping is from doing this in the incremental fashion that's been
requested? I understand that's adding work to an already long thread, but
there's so much going on now that it seems like resetting back to default
for lld and then moving forward is going to be the process that's easiest
understood for everyone.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -eric
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:13 PM Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>
wrote:
>>
>> My apologies, I didn't realize D84825 now restores the original
>> behavior. The review thread is a bit hard to follow :-)
>>
>> From the change description it still sounds like .debug_ranges &
>> .debug_loc tombstones are changing to -2 though? Or is that what we
>> had before?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84825 restored the behavior. I mean, with
respect, I do not know why it was marked as "request for changes".
Otherwise, it would have been resolved a week ago.
My understanding from this email thread is that .debug_loc &
.debug_ranges can use -2 and I don't quite understand why D84825 was
requested to use 1.
>> To be clear, I'm not familiar with the technical details here,
I'm
>> just keen that we end up in a known-good state.
>>
>> Also the patch is marked "release/11.x only". Normally we
land changes
>> on trunk first so it gets proper testing, and then merged to the
>> branch. I'd like that to be the case here too.
>>
>> I'd also like to see Eric or David sign off, since they understand
the
>> debug info, and I don't.
Not intend to blame any of you,  I think I have seen requests from
folks who did not patiently read the resolution and wanted to go with
trigger-happy "let's revert everything".
I do think we have communication problems in this thread and in the
patch, partly because they were unnecessarily postponed,
partly/honestly my own problems (I did not want to see it for the past
5 or 6 days as it indeed caused lots of stress/pain to me).
I'll be happy to chat offline with some folks, including Eric, David and
Petr.
There are mixed requests in this thread and the review thread. Some
are not critical as others.
If we can defer some (for example the requested command line option),
we can immediately push D84825 to release/11.x
tl;dr it will have a safe (GNU ld like) behavior, just not a toggle
some folks want.

I indeed intend the patch as "release/11.x only" as I still don't
see
sufficient reasons to change the trunk behavior back and forth.
I will of course verify that the patch will work for release/11.x
>>
>> To be honest, after writing this reply I still don't understand why
>> we're not just reverting the patches, merging that to 11.x, and
>> sending out a new patch where the desired behavior going forward can
>> be hashed out.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 8:47 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at
google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > As I mentioned in the thread (to many people who don't have
time to
>> > read the discussions), pushing https://reviews.llvm.org/D84825
>> > restores the original behavior.
>> > The same effect as one would get by reverting all related patches.
If
>> > someone gives me an approval, I'll push it immediately. I
already get
>> > verbal LGTM from Peter.
>> >
>> > > With respect I think the "request for changes"
blocked the change and I am not inclined to agree we would otherwise be at an
impasse without the "request for changes".
>> > I would likely get an "Accept Revision" or a just
textual "LGTM", even
>> > if there is a conditional request that ".debug_* should use 0
as well,
>> > like GNU ld".
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 11:27 AM Hans Wennborg <hans at
chromium.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > +the people who fell off the cc list for some reason
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 8:24 PM Hans Wennborg <hans at
chromium.org> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Can we please just revert back to what we had before
until the
>> > > > discussion about the desired behaviour and how to get
there reaches a
>> > > > conclusion?
>> > > >
>> > > > In particular, I would like to merge that revert to the
11.x branch.
>> > > > At this point in the release process, I'm not keen
on taking any patch
>> > > > that changes the behavior to something that hasn't
been well tested
>> > > > from sitting in trunk for a while.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 8:55 PM Petr Hosek via llvm-dev
>> > > > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I can weigh in as a maintainer of the Clang
toolchain on a project (Fuchsia) that lives at HEAD. We are still dealing with
the fallout of this change and our toolchain roll has been blocked since it
landed, while normally we would roll the toolchain every week. All the issues in
Breakpad that were affecting us seem to have been addressed, but there are
issues in other tools that we still haven't addressed and we're still
debugging. This has been difficult because each of the issues we found so far
have manifested differently and we had to do bisect multiple times, because we
weren't sure whether it was introduced by this one or some other change.
Furthermore, as the time since our last roll increases while we're blocked,
the range over which we have to bisect is also extending making this process
more and more time consuming.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Fangrui suggested passing the appropriate flag in
our build, but that's just infeasible for us. I cannot go into details, but
there are too many projects, too many repositories, too many build systems
involved. Doing such a coordinated change would likely take longer than
addressing all the issues. We have considered passing the flag in the Fuchsia
driver (which we control) but this doesn't entirely address the issue
because some of the failures we're seeing are in the host binaries (we use
the same toolchain for both the host and the target) so we would need to make
the same change in the Linux driver as well.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I agree that this change is the right long-term
direction, but I wish this was communicated better and it was done as an opt-in
rather than opt-out to give us enough time to iron out all the issues without
the stress.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 6:32 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng via
llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On 2020-07-29, Eric Christopher wrote:
>> > > > >> >I think the arguments are largely
compatibility for software that's already
>> > > > >> >deployed and can't easily upgrade, and
wanting to ensure a larger time
>> > > > >> >frame for migration with a fallback if
things go wrong. A bridge basically
>> > > > >> >from what we had to where we'd like to
be.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >I think we also need to make the change in
mainline lld as well - as you
>> > > > >> >might know it's occasionally easier to
upgrade a linker than to upgrade a
>> > > > >> >debugger. I don't have any strong
opinions on what we should name the
>> > > > >> >command line option, but something that
makes it unnecessary to actually
>> > > > >> >know the values you want to put in would
make it easier.
>> > > > >> >-debug-comdat-relocation-filler=compat,
bfd, <something> (yes, that's not
>> > > > >> >great, but it's at least a start :)
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >-eric
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> .debug_* => 0 looks good to me and I'd
like to make the change because some
>> > > > >> users in this thread expressed preference,
while some are bystanders, and I don't want
>> > > > >> to be the only one on the side opposite to the
side of users expressing preferece.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> An argument I have in mind but haven't
raised is that I don't want releases or
>> > > > >> HEAD to change behaviors too many times. This
was one argument I did not want
>> > > > >> .debug_* => 0 for the upcoming release and
.debug_* => -1 for a next one: there are 2
>> > > > >> behavior changes rather than one: old LLD:
addend, LLD 11: 0, LLD 11: -1.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> >I think we also need to make the change in
mainline lld as well - as you
>> > > > >> >might know it's occasionally easier to
upgrade a linker than to upgrade a
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> This is now a new request about HEAD behavior.
I would honestly be a bit
>> > > > >> concerned about making such kind of
back-and-forth change. This would invalidate
>> > > > >> some comments people have already contributed
to some projects (LLD since D81784
>> > > > >> use -1 ......) Do we know who are the other LLD
HEAD users? I still want to
>> > > > >> remind people that so far the only problematic
behaviors were caused by
>> > > > >> .debug_line: -1, not any other .debug_*. With
lack of more input, I'd want to
>> > > > >> avoid changes mitigating hypothetical issues.
It is possible that making more
>> > > > >> revert-restore changes could make the situation
more confusing.  Ultimately,
>> > > > >> this is an open source project and we make
changes for the interests of
>> > > > >> thecommunity.  Maybe it is time for more folks
to share opinions?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> If I had to make a name, I would call it
--dead-reloc-in-debug={bfd,new}, not -z
>> > > > >> as we don't expect GNU ld to adopt. The
option comes with a large notice that
>> > > > >> this option will go away. Moreover, the user
has to look up the semantics of
>> > > > >> 'bfd'. And the 'bfd' semantics
may get stale if GNU ld updates its behaviors.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> We can also take it from another perspective,
do the opt-in options look
>> > > > >> intimidating just because they are too long?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_ranges=0xfffffffffffffffe'
>> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_loc=0xfffffffffffffffe'
>> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_*=0xffffffffffffffff'
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> We can support signed integers:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_ranges=-2'
>> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_loc=-2'
>> > > > >> -z 'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_*=-1'
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Three options seem too long?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> We can support comma separated list:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_ranges=-2,.debug_loc=-2,.debug_*=-1'
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I'm glad that people raised a request for a
easy-to-toggle option, but I'd only
>> > > > >> be more comfortable accepting it if there are
sufficiently strong reasons for
>> > > > >> it, with the acknowledgement that the option
will be another GNU ld/gold/LLD
>> > > > >> difference (-z dead-reloc-in-nonalloc= has
somewhat a larger chance that it can
>> > > > >> be adopted by other linkers) and will go away
in two or three releases.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> >On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:00 PM Fāng-ruì
Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >> Created
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84825 to be used for release/11.x
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> I haven't seen a strong argument
for changing other .debug_*  but in
>> > > > >> >> any case I don't want to continue
debating on this topic.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> * .debug_ranges & .debug_loc: -2
(lld<11: 0+addend)
>> > > > >> >> * .debug_*: 0 (lld<11: 0+addend,
lld HEAD: -1)
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:47 PM David
Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:11 AM
Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
>> > > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > I still think that we do
bfd locs with a decent option to change for
>> > > > >> >> at least the current release and
sources and then, once we're a little more
>> > > > >> >> certain we have everything that might
want to parse dwarf (say by working
>> > > > >> >> with dwarf-discuss), we can change the
default.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> Given what’s been found, I
think Eric/Dave are correct, use bfd
>> > > > >> >> behavior by default with an option to
do the new thing.  The option can be
>> > > > >> >> coded to let Sony (SCE debugger
tuning) have it on by default.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> Bringing it up on
dwarf-discuss seems like a good idea too, you can
>> > > > >> >> refer to
http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=200609.1 as part of that.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > Thanks for the pointer! Posted
here:
>> > > > >> >>
http://lists.dwarfstd.org/pipermail/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org/2020-July/004683.html
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> --paulr
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> From: Eric Christopher
<echristo at gmail.com>
>> > > > >> >> >> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2020
12:56 AM
>> > > > >> >> >> To: Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray
at google.com>
>> > > > >> >> >> Cc: Hans Wennborg <hans at
chromium.org>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Alexey
>> > > > >> >> Lapshin <a.v.lapshin at
mail.ru>; George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com>;
>> > > > >> >> Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at
sony.com>; Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com>;
>> > > > >> >> Jonas Devlieghere <jdevlieghere at
apple.com>; James Henderson <
>> > > > >> >> jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk>;
Peter Smith <Peter.Smith at arm.com>; David
>> > > > >> >> Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>;
Pavel Labath <pavel at labath.sk>
>> > > > >> >> >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev]
Switch to ld.bfd tombstone behavior by default
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> Hi Ray :)
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> While I understand the desire
to say "we've updated everything we've
>> > > > >> >> found" the problem is that we
don't know that we've found even much of the
>> > > > >> >> uses or can guarantee that people can
upgrade, say their gdb or breakpad,
>> > > > >> >> as fast as their compiler. Even worse
it's a change in behavior without
>> > > > >> >> much notice at all or even a
particularly friendly way to recognize what
>> > > > >> >> they should do to fix it.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> I still think that we do bfd
locs with a decent option to change for at
>> > > > >> >> least the current release and sources
and then, once we're a little more
>> > > > >> >> certain we have everything that might
want to parse dwarf (say by working
>> > > > >> >> with dwarf-discuss), we can change the
default.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> -eric
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 7:33
PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com>
>> > > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> From my understanding the
breakpad bug was also only related to
>> > > > >> >> .debug_line and has been fixed by
>> > > > >> >>
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/breakpad/breakpad/+/2317730
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > a)
.debug_ranges&.debug_loc => -2, .debug_line => 0, other .debug_*
>> > > > >> >> -> -1
>> > > > >> >> >> > b)
.debug_ranges&.debug_loc => -2, other .debug_* => 0
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> I am still of the opinion
that we should just do a), not b).
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 9:33
AM Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>
>> > > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:12
PM Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com>
>> > > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > On 2020-07-24, Hans
Wennborg via llvm-dev wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >Sounds good to me
from a release perspective.
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > I think we need more
input from the triage of
>> > > > >> >> >> >
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2291352
>> > > > >> >> >> > whether it is just
.debug_line or .debug_*
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> The issue we hit in Chromium
is tracked here:
>> > > > >> >> >>
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1105559 Doesn't
>> > > > >> >> >> look like it has any more
info at the moment.
>> > > > >> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >On Fri, Jul 24, 2020
at 7:53 AM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev
>> > > > >> >> >> > ><llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >> Hi All,
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >> In general I
think we should adopt Dave's plan here. The number of
>> > > > >> >> consumers that can (and have) been
caught off guard by this change is just
>> > > > >> >> too high.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >> At the very
least I think we should move this to opt in to the new
>> > > > >> >> tombstoning behavior by default and at
most migrate to bfd's behavior for
>> > > > >> >> both the current release and in the
current tree. If we want to make this
>> > > > >> >> sort of change in the future by
default I think we're going to need to
>> > > > >> >> provide release notes about this and
do aggressive outreach towards the
>> > > > >> >> consumers we do know before making the
change. If anyone wants to drive
>> > > > >> >> that effort I'll happily provide
any help or assistance in getting you in
>> > > > >> >> touch with at least the consumers I
know about.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >> This change and
the need for it is also probably worth a quick
>> > > > >> >> message to dwarf-discuss at
dwarfstd.org as well. Most of the major
>> > > > >> >> consumers and producers are on that
list and it's probably one of the
>> > > > >> >> easiest ways to get this change out
there.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >> Any strong
objections to this path in the meantime?
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >> Thanks!
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >> -eric
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >> On Tue, Jul 21,
2020 at 12:18 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
>> > > > >> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> On Tue, Jul
21, 2020 at 5:34 AM Alexey Lapshin
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
<alapshin at accesssoftek.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >On
Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:32 AM Alexey Lapshin
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
><alapshin at accesssoftek.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 1:55 PM Alexey Lapshin <
>> > > > >> >> a.v.lapshin at mail.ru> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >Пятница, 17 июля 2020, 19:42 +03:00 от David Blaikie <
>> > > > >> >> dblaikie at gmail.com>:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:03 AM Fangrui Song <
>> > > > >> >> maskray at google.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> Thanks for the write-up!
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> On 2020-07-16, David Blaikie wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >In short: Perhaps we should switch lld to the
>> > > > >> >> bfd-style tombstoning
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >behavior for a release or two, letting users
opt-in
>> > > > >> >> to testing with the new
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >-1/-2 tombstoning in the interim, before
switching to
>> > > > >> >> the new tombstone by
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >default (while still having the flag to switch
back
>> > > > >> >> when users find
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >surprise places that can't handle the new
behavior).
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >In long:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >https://reviews.llvm.org/D81784 and follow-on
>> > > > >> >> patches modified the behavior
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >of lld with regards to resolving relocations from
>> > > > >> >> debug sections to dead
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >code (either comdat deduplicated, or gc-sections
use).
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >A very quick summary of the situation:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >Original Behavior:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - bfd: 1 for debug_ranges(0 would prematurely
>> > > > >> >> terminate the list), 0
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > elsewhere
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - gold/lld: 0+addend everywhere
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >Limitations/bugs:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - bfd/gold/lld
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - doesn't support 0 as a valid executable
address
>> > > > >> >> without ambiguities
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - gold/lld
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - ambiguities with large gc'd functions
combined
>> > > > >> >> with a .text mapping
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > that starts in relative low addresses
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - premature debug_range termination with
zero-length
>> > > > >> >> functions (Clang
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > produces these with __builtin_unreachable or
>> > > > >> >> non-void return
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >type functions
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > without a return statement)
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >New behavior:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - -2 for DWARFv4 debug_loc, debug_ranges (-1 is
a
>> > > > >> >> base address specifier
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > there)
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - -1 elsewhere
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - linker flag to customize to other values if
desired
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >Known issues:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - lldb's line table parsing can't handle
-1 well at
>> > > > >> >> all (essentially
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > unusable)
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> Pavel Labath will fix this soon
>> > > > >> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D83957
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> This is an unhandled address-space wraparound
problem.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> This pattern is potentially common - and other
>> > > > >> >> downstream DWARF
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> consumers might make similar line table handling
>> > > > >> >> mistakes.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >That's the thing - I'm not sure we can really
classify
>> > > > >> >> them as
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >"mistakes". I think bfd.ld's tombstoning
behavior is
>> > > > >> >> about the only
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >thing we can reasonably say DWARF consumers should
>> > > > >> >> /probably/ be
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >expected to handle - and I'd imagine in many cases
they
>> > > > >> >> haven't been
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >written intentionally to handle it, but whatever
>> > > > >> >> behavior they have
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >has accidentally been sufficient for their needs.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - gdb's line table parsing ends up with
different
>> > > > >> >> handling when breaking
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > on gc'd functions (minor functionality
issue)
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> This is just a behavior difference, not affecting
>> > > > >> >> users.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> It did break a test if linked with LLD (gdb
>> > > > >> >> intrinsically has lots of
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> failing tests even if built with GCC+GNU ld).
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> Previous behavior (when an address is zero): a
>> > > > >> >> breakpoint on a
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> --gc-sections discarded function will be redirected
to
>> > > > >> >> a larger line
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> number with debug info, even if that line can be an
>> > > > >> >> unrelated different
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> function.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> New behavior is that the breakpoint is on a
>> > > > >> >> wrapped-around small address.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> GDB 9.3 will restore the previous behavior
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> (
>> > > > >> >>
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=a8caed5d7faa639a1e6769eba551d15d8ddd9510
>> > > > >> >> )
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >I think there's enough risk in this work
(even given
>> > > > >> >> the small number of
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >bugs found so far), given there's a pretty
wide array
>> > > > >> >> of debug info
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >consumers out there, that we should change
lld's
>> > > > >> >> default to match the
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >long-lived bfd strategy. This would address my
>> > > > >> >> original motivation for
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >raising all this (empty functions prematurely
>> > > > >> >> terminating the list), while
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >letting users who want to experiment with it, or
need
>> > > > >> >> it (like Alexey), can
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >opt-in to the -1/-2 behavior.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> I think we can only confidently say that there is
>> > > > >> >> enough risk in using
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> tombstone value -1 in .debug_line, but I'd not
say
>> > > > >> >> tombstone value -1 in
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> other .debug_* can cause problems.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >Given how many DWARF parsers we've had to cleanup or
>> > > > >> >> migrate off in
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >transitioning to DWARFv5 inside Google, I think that's
a
>> > > > >> >> fair bit of
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >evidence the set of parsers isn't as narrow/closed as
>> > > > >> >> we'd like and
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >thus the number of places that might have issues isn't
>> > > > >> >> known/easily
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >exhaustively tested. So I'm not so concerned about the
>> > > > >> >> bugs we've
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >seen, but what that might indicate about the things that
>> > > > >> >> we don't know
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >about and can't test (because we don't know about
them).
>> > > > >> >> (of course,
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >the flipside of that is that if we don't know about
>> > > > >> >> them, we can't
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >tell people who own them to go check if they work with
>> > > > >> >> this opt-in
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >feature - so they'll break whenever we turn this on by
>> > > > >> >> default - but
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >perhaps in the interim we can get at least a few big LLD
>> > > > >> >> customers to
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >deploy the feature and flush out some of the issues -
>> > > > >> >> happy for Google
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >to use this internally, hopefully we can encourage Apple
>> > > > >> >> folks, Sony
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >of course already has this semantic so nothing to find
>> > > > >> >> there most
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >likely - Chromium, maybe Firefox, etc)
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> From the other side — when we already switched new
>> > > > >> >> behavior ON as default —
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> then it is easier to discover all these unknown cases. We
>> > > > >> >> have an option restoring
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> old behavior(which should be fine for all of the current
>> > > > >> >> users). Thus, everybody
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> who needs old behavior is able to continue using it.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >The cost to those users figuring out that it's a problem
>> > > > >> >> and finding
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >the flags/adding them, etc, is non-zero.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >But, yes, as I said - eventually some of that will happen,
>> > > > >> >> sooner or
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >later. But reducing how much of it happens is valuable too.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> I agree. Reducing the impact on customers is important.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> Though in this case, as you said, it would be done
>> > > > >> >> anyway(sooner or later).
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> Finally, I do not know what is more important: a) get
>> > > > >> >> feedback faster with
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> the cost of involved users and requiring them to make efforts
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> to figure out the problem. or b) test with a smaller set of
>> > > > >> >> users,
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> find more problematic cases, make new tombstone value to be
>> > > > >> >> default later.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> I am kind of preferring a). But, b) is more safe and is OK.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> That makes transition more understandable. All problems
>> > > > >> >> would be explicitly seen. Then,
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> If we will know about new problems - we could adapt the
>> > > > >> >> current solution. Similar to this
>suggestion:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> a) .debug_ranges&.debug_loc => -2, .debug_line => 0,
>> > > > >> >> other .debug_* -> -1
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >The issue I have with this is that it's reflective of the
>> > > > >> >> known
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >breakage in some tools that happen to have a quick
>> > > > >> >> turnaround/feedback
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >- and assumes all the other sections are significantly less
>> > > > >> >> likely to
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >have problems with this format - and I don't think we have
>> > > > >> >> enough data
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >to make that estimate.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> We could extend that rule when/if new problems become known.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> Or, customers could fix their code or use option returning
>> > > > >> >> old behavior
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> and it would probably not be necessary to extend the rule.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >I think having a clear flag for bfd behavior or new
>> > > > >> >> behavior would be
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >good, keeping it bfd-by-default for now, evangelizing
>> > > > >> >> (patch notes,
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >outreach to other projects and tool developers) the new
>> > > > >> >> functionality
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >& then changing the default shortly after an LLVM release
>> > > > >> >> (perhaps 12
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >- but perhaps longer) to give it time to bake for
>> > > > >> >> trunk-following
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >users (ample time for them to pick it up on their schedule,
>> > > > >> >> see what
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >other tools might break, whether they're isolated enough to
>> > > > >> >> expect a
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >quick turnaround or whether we should get them updated and
>> > > > >> >> then wait a
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >while longer.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> yes, doing clear flag for bfd behavior or new behavior,
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> and keep it bfd-by-default for now would be OK and is more
>> > > > >> >> safe.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> This would help while dwarf users are preparing their
>> > > > >> >> code to the new solution.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> Is option restoring old behavior not enough to solve
>> > > > >> >> problems caused by new tombstone
>value?
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >I don't personally think it is enough - given some of the
>> > > > >> >> known
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >breakage - I think that points to a fair bit of reasonably
>> > > > >> >> possible
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >unknown breakage. Having a few big (like Apple and Google)
>> > > > >> >> users
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >switch over by default & potentially flush out a few more
>> > > > >> >> issues (or
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >not -but build confidence that there aren't more issues) I
>> > > > >> >> think is an
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >appropriate way to roll out a change like this.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >(minor doubt: I wonder how well the bfd tombstoning works
>> > > > >> >> in DWARFv5
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >(rnglists/loclists) or in debug_range/debug_loc that uses
>> > > > >> >> base address
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >specifiers, where the zero-without-addend doesn't have a
>> > > > >> >> chance to
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >make an empty range (because it's not a start/end pair,
>> > > > >> >> it's a
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >start+offset pair - so the offset remains non-zero)... if
>> > > > >> >> bfd
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >tombstoning breaks DWARFv5 parsing (or base address
>> > > > >> >> specifiers in
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >range/loc) in common consumers I might be more inclined to
>> > > > >> >> support
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >enabling new tombstoning by default sooner (though if we
>> > > > >> >> could enable
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >it just for DWARFv5 that might be nice - but not practical,
>> > > > >> >> since the
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >linker doesn't know what DWARF it's linking & could be
>> > > > >> >> linking
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >multiple versions))
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> - From the point of view overlapping address ranges,
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> both bfd-solution(using 1) and old lld solution(using 0) are
>> > > > >> >> equal.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>gold and lld's solution was a bit more complicated than using
>> > > > >> >> zero (&
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>bfd's solution uses 1 in debug_ranges, but not in other debug
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>sections). lld and gold use 0+addend in ranges.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > right.
I am talking about the same(though assumed that context
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
instead of detailed explanation). it should be
>> > > > >> >> "bfd-solution(using 1
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > for
debug_ranges) and lld/gold solution(using 0+addend)".
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > Thank
you for pointing into that.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >0
alone in ranges
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>would be more problematic than any of the other deployed
>> > > > >> >> solutions,
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>because it would lead to the debug_ranges contributions being
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>terminated early (0, 0 terminates the list - so debug_ranges
>> > > > >> >> for a CU
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>with one gc'd function mid-way through the range list would
>> > > > >> >> drop the
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>rest of the range lit) - that's why bfd uses 1 for
>> > > > >> >> debug_ranges rather
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>than 0 which it uses elsewhere (though the same fix should,
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>technically, be applied to debug_loc too for the same reasons
>> > > > >> >> as
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>debug_ranges). the 0+addend approach of gold/lld works OK
>> > > > >> >> (except for
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>the low address overlap) except when there's a zero-length
>> > > > >> >> function,
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>then 0+addend == 0 for the end of the range, andy ou get a 0,0
>> > > > >> >> entry
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>with the premature range list termination issues.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> for the "start+offset pair" case they could result in
>> > > > >> >> overlapping address ranges.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>Not quite - the way bfd does things, at least in debug_ranges
>> > > > >> >> without
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>base address specifiers (bit hard to isolate for a consumer,
>> > > > >> >> really -
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>though they could special case zero base addresses... sort of)
>> > > > >> >> the
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>empty ranges are (1, 1) - they're actually empty. Whereas lld's
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>approach ends up with (0+addend, 0+addend) which is usually
>> > > > >> >> (0, size)
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>which has issues with overlap on systems that have a valid low
>> > > > >> >> address
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>range (or if you have sufficiently large functions).
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > There
is a case when size of address range is set not by
>> > > > >> >> relocated value but by constant value:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
DWARF5:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
DW_RLE_startx_length
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
DW_RLE_start_length
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
{address of deleted code, length}
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
{address of existing code, length}
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
DWARF4:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > base
address selection entry: {-1, address of deleted code}
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
following range list entry: {0, length}
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > base
address selection entry: {-1, address of existing code}
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
following range list entry: {0, length}
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > In
these cases linker do not see the length of address range
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > and
could not change it(using 1, or 0, or 0+addend) to be zero
>> > > > >> >> length
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
address range. Thus address ranges could overlap.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > So in
both DWARF5 and DWARF4 there are cases when address ranges
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > could
be overlapped and it could not be solved without new
>> > > > >> >> meaning for tombstone value.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> - From the point of view correct parsing of DWARF 5 - it
>> > > > >> >> looks like they are equally good.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>Yep, DWARFv5 is more complicated - bfd's approach would be
>> > > > >> >> marginally
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>better even for addr+offset encodings in debug_rnglists -
>> > > > >> >> since it'd
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>always produce a 0 for the addr, whereas gold/lld's behavior
>> > > > >> >> can in
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>some cases (eg: "void f1() { } __attribute__((nodebug)) void
>> > > > >> >> f2() { }
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>void f3() { }" with -fno-function-sections - you'll end up
>> > > > >> >> with the
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>range for f3 starting at a non-zero addend - this debug info
>> > > > >> >> will be
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>worse for bfd/ld (if the DWARF for this object was included,
>> > > > >> >> but the
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>whole .text section was discarded (eg: maybe there's a global
>> > > > >> >> variable
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >in
this object which is linked in, but -gc-section is still
>> > > > >> >> able to
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>discard the whole .text section as unreferenced) then
>> > > > >> >> gold/lld's
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>approach would make f3 unidentifiable as dead code (because it
>> > > > >> >> doesn't
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>have a tombstone start) but bfd's approach would work
>> > > > >> >> (assuming zero
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>isn't a valid address))
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > I see.
thanks.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> - From the point of view correct parsing of DWARF 4 - it
>> > > > >> >> looks bfd-solution(using 1)
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> is better than the old lld solution(using 0). When range
>> > > > >> >> list entry contains
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> addresses(start+end) which should be relocated and for the
>> > > > >> >> zero-length functions,
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> bfd-solution would result in range list entry: {1, 1}, while
>> > > > >> >> old lld solution
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> would result in {0, 0}, and match with the end of list entry.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> That is the original problem that started this thread.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>Only comes up for zero-length functions, because gold/lld's
>> > > > >> >> approach
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>was 0+addend, not straight 0.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > right.
for zero-length functions.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> Though it looks like there still exist case when range list
>> > > > >> >> could be terminated earlier:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> base address selection entry: {-1, address of deleted code}
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> following range list entry: {0, 0} << points to the same
>> > > > >> >> address as set by base address
selection entry and has zero size.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>That's a bug in the producer (though a good point - I've
>> > > > >> >> probably made
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>that bug in LLVM) - the linker can't solve that problem, since
>> > > > >> >> the
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>linker can't touch the literal unrelocated 0, 0.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> after linker resolved relocations it would look like this,
>> > > > >> >> for bfd case:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> base address selection entry: {-1, 1}
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> following range list entry: {0, 0}
<<<<<<<<<<<
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> So there still exists {0,0} entry which could be considered
>> > > > >> >> as the end of list entry.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> But old lld solution has the same problem, thus it would not
>> > > > >> >> be new.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> - Additionally, AFAIK gdb has special processing for
>> > > > >> >> overlapped address
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> ranges starting from 0. Using bfd tombstone value could
>> > > > >> >> break that processing - I would check
it.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>Not sure I understand - presumably gdb's special processing is
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>intended to work with bfd's tombstoning, since it's been the
>> > > > >> >> most
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>common/prolific unix linker, the one intended to work with gdb
>> > > > >> >> (they
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>exist in the same repository) for decades, right?
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > I
think I misunderstood this: "I wonder how well the bfd
>> > > > >> >> tombstoning works in DWARFv5
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
(rnglists/loclists)". I read it as we would like to use bfd
>> > > > >> >> tombstoning(1 for ranges)
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > for
rnglists/loclists also.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > So,
right. bfd's tombstoning works correctly with gdb until 1
>> > > > >> >> is not used
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > for
rnglists/loclists as tombstone value.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> Not quite
parsing this, but I think we're on the same page - that
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> bfd's
tombstoning "1 for debug_ranges/debug_loc, 0 (not 0+addend,
>> > > > >> >> but
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> absolute 0)
for everything else (including debug_loclists and
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
debug_rnglists)" is probably the most likely to work for gdb,
>> > > > >> >> since
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> it's
been deployed for a long time.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> - Dave
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> PS: Fair
point about base address specifiers being able to
>> > > > >> >> produce 0,0
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> entries -
wouldn't mind fixing that in LLVM if I knew of an easy
>> > > > >> >> way
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> to test at
compile-time whether the difference between two labels
>> > > > >> >> was
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> zero, then
skip that entry in the lists entirely. Would save
>> > > > >> >> space and
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> address the
original issue I had with debug_ranges terminating
>> > > > >> >> early.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
(should've thought about that much earlier than my more alarmist
>> > > > >> >> "oh
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> deer, we
need to fundamentally change how linkers resolve
>> > > > >> >> relocations
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> because
everything's been broken and we just didn't realize it" -
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> fixing the
compiler not to produce zero-length ranges would've
>> > > > >> >> been
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> less risky
& probably still worth doing - though addressing the
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> broader
issue to help with your situation of 0 as a valid address
>> > > > >> >> I
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> think is
still good too)
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
Alexey.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> With consideration for satefy for the upcoming
>> > > > >> >> release/11.x, we can make
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> two choices:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> a) .debug_ranges&.debug_loc => -2, .debug_line => 0,
>> > > > >> >> other .debug_* -> -1
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> b) .debug_ranges&.debug_loc => -2, other .debug_* => 0
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> Delaying .debug_line => -1 for one or two release sounds
>> > > > >> >> good to me.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> So LLD 11 or 12 linked binaries can be debugged by LLDB
>> > > > >> >> 10. This is a
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> nice property.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> This write-up proposes b), but I'd say a) is likely
>> > > > >> >> sufficient. With the
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> available information, I cannot yet say that a) will
>> > > > >> >> have more risk.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >Risk is about the unknowns - and it still seems like a lot
>> > > > >> >> of
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >unknowns. While there are probably many more consumers
>> > > > >> >> that read
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >.debug_line than other sections, reading debug_info (for
>> > > > >> >> instance) is
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >necessary for inline frames in symbolizing - still
>> > > > >> >> probably one of the
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >most common uses of DWARF I'd guess. (what about stack
>> > > > >> >> unwinding using
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >debug_frame? that'd worry me a bit if anyone got /that/
>> > > > >> >> wrong because
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >of this change)
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> > - chromium/firefox have some tools that were broken:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >
>> > > > >> >>
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1102223#c5
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> This is potentially related to other .debug_* (not
>> > > > >> >> .debug_line)
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> I hope Chromium developers can chime in here:) The
>> > > > >> >> breakage was
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> unfortunate but I don't know how we could have avoided
>> > > > >> >> that. IMHO this
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> is no different from "clang started to emit a new
>> > > > >> >> DW_FORM_* and a
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> postprocessing tool of .debug chokes on that" Whether we
>> > > > >> >> want to
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> suppress that particular DW_FORM_* definitely should
>> > > > >> >> depend on how
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> likely it can cause problems, but we can't yet say we
>> > > > >> >> have to hold off
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> on a feature for a solved (precisely, mitigated) problem.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >LLVM has no custom forms and I'd be super cautious about
>> > > > >> >> adding any
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >that were on by default because of how bad that breakage
>> > > > >> >> would be.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >I'm not so concerned about the problems we know - but what
>> > > > >> >> they tell
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >us about the problems that might arise from use cases we
>> > > > >> >> don't know.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >All the other projects out there that might have custom
>> > > > >> >> DWARF parsers
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >to do some ad-hoc things.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >(also, ultimately - given how far-reaching this is, I
>> > > > >> >> think we'll want
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >some tidier flags that are more user-focussed. I'd hope
>> > > > >> >> for a flag
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >that gives BFD-like semantics (though I'd be OK with
>> > > > >> >> fixing debug_loc
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >(using 1 instead of 0) to work the same as debug_ranges
>> > > > >> >> while we're
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >there - a minor divergence from BFD, but highly likely to
>> > > > >> >> not cause
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >problems/fall out naturally from a simple implementation
>> > > > >> >> of parsing
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >that section) - something that's been in-use and tested by
>> > > > >> >> basically
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >everyone for decades. And another flag for the new
>> > > > >> >> semantics (-2 for
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >debug_loc/debug_ranges, -1 everywhere else). Customizable
>> > > > >> >> per-section
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >expression-based support I think is a recipe for platform
>> > > > >> >> divergence &
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >I'd rather it not be available/supported at all, but if
>> > > > >> >> you really
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >want to keep it in, I'd at least rather it not be the
>> > > > >> >> feature we
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >promote to users about how they can test/opt in/out of the
>> > > > >> >> behavior
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >when they're seeing breakages or want to test the future
>> > > > >> >> semantics)
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >I'm not sure how to get the word out to DWARF consumers
>> > > > >> >> that they should
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >consider this new experimental behavior. Ray's done a
>> > > > >> >> good job
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >evangelizing/discussing this with gdb and lldb at least
>> > > > >> >> - and of course
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >having turned it on by default briefly has found some
>> > > > >> >> users (like Chromium)
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >that we probably wouldn't have found no matter how long
>> > > > >> >> we left this as an
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >experimental option... so some things are going to
>> > > > >> >> break when we switch no
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >matter what.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> Thank you for following up with some GNU folks on their
>> > > > >> >> lists!
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> If folks want to follow along the thread:
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >>
>> > > > >> >>
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2020-June/111376.html
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> We have informed binutils, elfutils-devel (elfutils has
>> > > > >> >> a few debug
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> tools) and gdb. I don't recall that anyone has thought
>> > > > >> >> about problems
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> with a tombstone value.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >P.S: Sony's already been using the -1 technique with
>> > > > >> >> their debugger and
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >linker for a while, so they may want to keep this on by
>> > > > >> >> default for SCE -
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >but I'm not sure how to do that in-tree.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >Clang doesn't know which lld
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >version it's running, so whether the flag can be
>> > > > >> >> specified, I would think?
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >(so it'd be hard to have Clang go "if SCE and LLD,
pass
>> > > > >> >> the flag to use
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >-1", I think) - if there is a way to make that decision
>> > > > >> >> in the compiler
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >.> >driver+linker, then we'd have a question of "default
>> > > > >> >> new behavior except
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >when tuning for LLDB and GDB" or "default bfd
behavior
>> > > > >> >> except when tuning
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> >for SCE".
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> I've been involed in another thread on SHF_LINK_ORDER (
>> > > > >> >>
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2020-
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >July/112415.html ).
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> We may need a way to tell codegen about the used linker.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> pcc proposed -mbinutils-version= - This is nice in that
>> > > > >> >> some MC
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> decisions related to -fno-integrated-as can use this
>> > > > >> >> option as well.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> jyknight proposed -mlinker-version= and syntax like
>> > > > >> >> -fuse-ld=bfd:2.34
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >>
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> This may get more complex if the generated object file
>> > > > >> >> want to be linked
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> with more than one linker. This discussion probably
>> > > > >> >> deserves its own
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
> >> thread.
>> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > >
>
>> > > > >> _______________________________________________
>> > > > >> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> > > > >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > > > >>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> > > > >
>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> > > > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > > > >
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > 宋方睿


-- 
宋方睿

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:50 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:32 PM Eric Christopher <echristo at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Honestly even though I do understand the debug information I'm
with you
> and one reason why I'm pushing for the same reset that you are. There
are a
> lot of threads, it's fairly confusing what has been done where and
other
> than some fairly widespread breakage among early users of lld (i.e. a short
> time from commit to use) it's unclear what the plan is to roll this out
> effectively across releases.
> >
> > Ray: Can you summarize what is where, what you'd like the plan is,
and
> what is stopping is from doing this in the incremental fashion that's
been
> requested? I understand that's adding work to an already long thread,
but
> there's so much going on now that it seems like resetting back to
default
> for lld and then moving forward is going to be the process that's
easiest
> understood for everyone.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -eric
>
>
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 12:13 PM Hans Wennborg <hans at
chromium.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> My apologies, I didn't realize D84825 now restores the
original
> >> behavior. The review thread is a bit hard to follow :-)
> >>
> >> From the change description it still sounds like .debug_ranges
&
> >> .debug_loc tombstones are changing to -2 though? Or is that what
we
> >> had before?
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D84825 restored the behavior. I mean, with
> respect, I do not know why it was marked as "request for
changes".
> Otherwise, it would have been resolved a week ago.
> My understanding from this email thread is that .debug_loc &
> .debug_ranges can use -2 and I don't quite understand why D84825 was
> requested to use 1.
>
> >> To be clear, I'm not familiar with the technical details here,
I'm
> >> just keen that we end up in a known-good state.
> >>
> >> Also the patch is marked "release/11.x only". Normally
we land changes
> >> on trunk first so it gets proper testing, and then merged to the
> >> branch. I'd like that to be the case here too.
> >>
> >> I'd also like to see Eric or David sign off, since they
understand the
> >> debug info, and I don't.
>
> Not intend to blame any of you,  I think I have seen requests from
> folks who did not patiently read the resolution and wanted to go with
> trigger-happy "let's revert everything".
> I do think we have communication problems in this thread and in the
> patch, partly because they were unnecessarily postponed,
> partly/honestly my own problems (I did not want to see it for the past
> 5 or 6 days as it indeed caused lots of stress/pain to me).
>
Understandable, but often reverting is just easier and then a path forward
can be gained through collaboration.

> I'll be happy to chat offline with some folks, including Eric, David
and
> Petr.
> There are mixed requests in this thread and the review thread. Some
> are not critical as others.
>
I'll speak with you offline about this today. Let's try to avoid making
judgment on what's critical though.

> If we can defer some (for example the requested command line option),
> we can immediately push D84825 to release/11.x
> tl;dr it will have a safe (GNU ld like) behavior, just not a toggle
> some folks want.
>
>
I'm ok without a toggle, but I'd like to stress that the behavior
should,
as far as we can know, be identical to gnu ld and not "like it but with
some changes". This is to give us as much assurance that third party tools
can work with lld output as easily as possible.

> I indeed intend the patch as "release/11.x only" as I still
don't see
> sufficient reasons to change the trunk behavior back and forth.
> I will of course verify that the patch will work for release/11.x
>
>
The reason to change trunk behavior is that not everything that everyone
has can be fixed and numerous people have already mentioned that none of
the existing workarounds will work for them. They depend on trunk having a
reliable and stable behavior and the current state is breaking them in ways
that we cannot be assured can be fixed.

Thanks.

-eric


> >>
> >> To be honest, after writing this reply I still don't
understand why
> >> we're not just reverting the patches, merging that to 11.x,
and
> >> sending out a new patch where the desired behavior going forward
can
> >> be hashed out.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 8:47 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at
google.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > As I mentioned in the thread (to many people who don't
have time to
> >> > read the discussions), pushing
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84825
> >> > restores the original behavior.
> >> > The same effect as one would get by reverting all related
patches. If
> >> > someone gives me an approval, I'll push it immediately. I
already get
> >> > verbal LGTM from Peter.
> >> >
> >> > > With respect I think the "request for changes"
blocked the change
> and I am not inclined to agree we would otherwise be at an impasse without
> the "request for changes".
> >> > I would likely get an "Accept Revision" or a just
textual "LGTM", even
> >> > if there is a conditional request that ".debug_* should
use 0 as well,
> >> > like GNU ld".
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 11:27 AM Hans Wennborg <hans at
chromium.org>
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > +the people who fell off the cc list for some reason
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 8:24 PM Hans Wennborg <hans at
chromium.org>
> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Can we please just revert back to what we had
before until the
> >> > > > discussion about the desired behaviour and how to
get there
> reaches a
> >> > > > conclusion?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In particular, I would like to merge that revert to
the 11.x
> branch.
> >> > > > At this point in the release process, I'm not
keen on taking any
> patch
> >> > > > that changes the behavior to something that
hasn't been well
> tested
> >> > > > from sitting in trunk for a while.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 8:55 PM Petr Hosek via
llvm-dev
> >> > > > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I can weigh in as a maintainer of the Clang
toolchain on a
> project (Fuchsia) that lives at HEAD. We are still dealing with the fallout
> of this change and our toolchain roll has been blocked since it landed,
> while normally we would roll the toolchain every week. All the issues in
> Breakpad that were affecting us seem to have been addressed, but there are
> issues in other tools that we still haven't addressed and we're
still
> debugging. This has been difficult because each of the issues we found so
> far have manifested differently and we had to do bisect multiple times,
> because we weren't sure whether it was introduced by this one or some
other
> change. Furthermore, as the time since our last roll increases while
we're
> blocked, the range over which we have to bisect is also extending making
> this process more and more time consuming.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Fangrui suggested passing the appropriate flag
in our build,
> but that's just infeasible for us. I cannot go into details, but there
are
> too many projects, too many repositories, too many build systems involved.
> Doing such a coordinated change would likely take longer than addressing
> all the issues. We have considered passing the flag in the Fuchsia driver
> (which we control) but this doesn't entirely address the issue because
some
> of the failures we're seeing are in the host binaries (we use the same
> toolchain for both the host and the target) so we would need to make the
> same change in the Linux driver as well.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I agree that this change is the right
long-term direction, but
> I wish this was communicated better and it was done as an opt-in rather
> than opt-out to give us enough time to iron out all the issues without the
> stress.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 6:32 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng
via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> On 2020-07-29, Eric Christopher wrote:
> >> > > > >> >I think the arguments are largely
compatibility for software
> that's already
> >> > > > >> >deployed and can't easily upgrade,
and wanting to ensure a
> larger time
> >> > > > >> >frame for migration with a fallback if
things go wrong. A
> bridge basically
> >> > > > >> >from what we had to where we'd
like to be.
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >I think we also need to make the
change in mainline lld as
> well - as you
> >> > > > >> >might know it's occasionally
easier to upgrade a linker than
> to upgrade a
> >> > > > >> >debugger. I don't have any strong
opinions on what we should
> name the
> >> > > > >> >command line option, but something
that makes it unnecessary
> to actually
> >> > > > >> >know the values you want to put in
would make it easier.
> >> > > > >>
>-debug-comdat-relocation-filler=compat, bfd, <something>
> (yes, that's not
> >> > > > >> >great, but it's at least a start
:)
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >-eric
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> .debug_* => 0 looks good to me and
I'd like to make the change
> because some
> >> > > > >> users in this thread expressed preference,
while some are
> bystanders, and I don't want
> >> > > > >> to be the only one on the side opposite to
the side of users
> expressing preferece.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> An argument I have in mind but haven't
raised is that I don't
> want releases or
> >> > > > >> HEAD to change behaviors too many times.
This was one argument
> I did not want
> >> > > > >> .debug_* => 0 for the upcoming release
and .debug_* => -1 for
> a next one: there are 2
> >> > > > >> behavior changes rather than one: old LLD:
addend, LLD 11: 0,
> LLD 11: -1.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> >I think we also need to make the
change in mainline lld as
> well - as you
> >> > > > >> >might know it's occasionally
easier to upgrade a linker than
> to upgrade a
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> This is now a new request about HEAD
behavior. I would
> honestly be a bit
> >> > > > >> concerned about making such kind of
back-and-forth change.
> This would invalidate
> >> > > > >> some comments people have already
contributed to some projects
> (LLD since D81784
> >> > > > >> use -1 ......) Do we know who are the
other LLD HEAD users? I
> still want to
> >> > > > >> remind people that so far the only
problematic behaviors were
> caused by
> >> > > > >> .debug_line: -1, not any other .debug_*.
With lack of more
> input, I'd want to
> >> > > > >> avoid changes mitigating hypothetical
issues. It is possible
> that making more
> >> > > > >> revert-restore changes could make the
situation more
> confusing.  Ultimately,
> >> > > > >> this is an open source project and we make
changes for the
> interests of
> >> > > > >> thecommunity.  Maybe it is time for more
folks to share
> opinions?
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> If I had to make a name, I would call it
> --dead-reloc-in-debug={bfd,new}, not -z
> >> > > > >> as we don't expect GNU ld to adopt.
The option comes with a
> large notice that
> >> > > > >> this option will go away. Moreover, the
user has to look up
> the semantics of
> >> > > > >> 'bfd'. And the 'bfd'
semantics may get stale if GNU ld updates
> its behaviors.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> We can also take it from another
perspective, do the opt-in
> options look
> >> > > > >> intimidating just because they are too
long?
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_ranges=0xfffffffffffffffe'
> >> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_loc=0xfffffffffffffffe'
> >> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_*=0xffffffffffffffff'
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> We can support signed integers:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_ranges=-2'
> >> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_loc=-2'
> >> > > > >> -z
'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_*=-1'
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> Three options seem too long?
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> We can support comma separated list:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> -z
> 'dead-reloc-in-nonalloc=.debug_ranges=-2,.debug_loc=-2,.debug_*=-1'
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> I'm glad that people raised a request
for a easy-to-toggle
> option, but I'd only
> >> > > > >> be more comfortable accepting it if there
are sufficiently
> strong reasons for
> >> > > > >> it, with the acknowledgement that the
option will be another
> GNU ld/gold/LLD
> >> > > > >> difference (-z dead-reloc-in-nonalloc= has
somewhat a larger
> chance that it can
> >> > > > >> be adopted by other linkers) and will go
away in two or three
> releases.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> >On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:00 PM
Fāng-ruì Sòng <
> maskray at google.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >> Created
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84825 to be used for
> release/11.x
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> I haven't seen a strong
argument for changing other
> .debug_*  but in
> >> > > > >> >> any case I don't want to
continue debating on this topic.
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> * .debug_ranges & .debug_loc:
-2 (lld<11: 0+addend)
> >> > > > >> >> * .debug_*: 0 (lld<11:
0+addend, lld HEAD: -1)
> >> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:47 PM
David Blaikie <
> dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:11
AM Robinson, Paul <
> paul.robinson at sony.com>
> >> > > > >> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > I still think that
we do bfd locs with a decent option
> to change for
> >> > > > >> >> at least the current release and
sources and then, once
> we're a little more
> >> > > > >> >> certain we have everything that
might want to parse dwarf
> (say by working
> >> > > > >> >> with dwarf-discuss), we can
change the default.
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> Given what’s been found,
I think Eric/Dave are correct,
> use bfd
> >> > > > >> >> behavior by default with an
option to do the new thing.
> The option can be
> >> > > > >> >> coded to let Sony (SCE debugger
tuning) have it on by
> default.
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> Bringing it up on
dwarf-discuss seems like a good idea
> too, you can
> >> > > > >> >> refer to
http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=200609.1
> as part of that.
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> > Thanks for the pointer!
Posted here:
> >> > > > >> >>
>
http://lists.dwarfstd.org/pipermail/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org/2020-July/004683.html
> >> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> --paulr
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> From: Eric Christopher
<echristo at gmail.com>
> >> > > > >> >> >> Sent: Saturday, July 25,
2020 12:56 AM
> >> > > > >> >> >> To: Fāng-ruì Sòng
<maskray at google.com>
> >> > > > >> >> >> Cc: Hans Wennborg
<hans at chromium.org>;
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Alexey
> >> > > > >> >> Lapshin <a.v.lapshin at
mail.ru>; George Rimar <
> grimar at accesssoftek.com>;
> >> > > > >> >> Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson
at sony.com>; Adrian Prantl <
> aprantl at apple.com>;
> >> > > > >> >> Jonas Devlieghere
<jdevlieghere at apple.com>; James
> Henderson <
> >> > > > >> >> jh7370.2008 at
my.bristol.ac.uk>; Peter Smith <
> Peter.Smith at arm.com>; David
> >> > > > >> >> Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com>; Pavel Labath <pavel at labath.sk
> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev]
Switch to ld.bfd tombstone
> behavior by default
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> Hi Ray :)
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> While I understand the
desire to say "we've updated
> everything we've
> >> > > > >> >> found" the problem is that
we don't know that we've found
> even much of the
> >> > > > >> >> uses or can guarantee that people
can upgrade, say their
> gdb or breakpad,
> >> > > > >> >> as fast as their compiler. Even
worse it's a change in
> behavior without
> >> > > > >> >> much notice at all or even a
particularly friendly way to
> recognize what
> >> > > > >> >> they should do to fix it.
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> I still think that we do
bfd locs with a decent option
> to change for at
> >> > > > >> >> least the current release and
sources and then, once we're
> a little more
> >> > > > >> >> certain we have everything that
might want to parse dwarf
> (say by working
> >> > > > >> >> with dwarf-discuss), we can
change the default.
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> -eric
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at
7:33 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <
> maskray at google.com>
> >> > > > >> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> From my understanding
the breakpad bug was also only
> related to
> >> > > > >> >> .debug_line and has been fixed by
> >> > > > >> >>
> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/breakpad/breakpad/+/2317730
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > a)
.debug_ranges&.debug_loc => -2, .debug_line => 0,
> other .debug_*
> >> > > > >> >> -> -1
> >> > > > >> >> >> > b)
.debug_ranges&.debug_loc => -2, other .debug_* => 0
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> I am still of the
opinion that we should just do a), not
> b).
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at
9:33 AM Hans Wennborg <
> hans at chromium.org>
> >> > > > >> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at
5:12 PM Fangrui Song <
> maskray at google.com>
> >> > > > >> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > On 2020-07-24, Hans
Wennborg via llvm-dev wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >Sounds good to
me from a release perspective.
> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > I think we need
more input from the triage of
> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2291352
> >> > > > >> >> >> > whether it is just
.debug_line or .debug_*
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> The issue we hit in
Chromium is tracked here:
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1105559 Doesn't
> >> > > > >> >> >> look like it has any
more info at the moment.
> >> > > > >> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >On Fri, Jul 24,
2020 at 7:53 AM Eric Christopher via
> llvm-dev
> >> > > > >> >> >> > ><llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >> Hi All,
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >> In general
I think we should adopt Dave's plan
> here. The number of
> >> > > > >> >> consumers that can (and have)
been caught off guard by this
> change is just
> >> > > > >> >> too high.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >> At the
very least I think we should move this to
> opt in to the new
> >> > > > >> >> tombstoning behavior by default
and at most migrate to
> bfd's behavior for
> >> > > > >> >> both the current release and in
the current tree. If we
> want to make this
> >> > > > >> >> sort of change in the future by
default I think we're going
> to need to
> >> > > > >> >> provide release notes about this
and do aggressive outreach
> towards the
> >> > > > >> >> consumers we do know before
making the change. If anyone
> wants to drive
> >> > > > >> >> that effort I'll happily
provide any help or assistance in
> getting you in
> >> > > > >> >> touch with at least the consumers
I know about.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >> This
change and the need for it is also probably
> worth a quick
> >> > > > >> >> message to dwarf-discuss at
dwarfstd.org as well. Most of the
> major
> >> > > > >> >> consumers and producers are on
that list and it's probably
> one of the
> >> > > > >> >> easiest ways to get this change
out there.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >> Any strong
objections to this path in the meantime?
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >> Thanks!
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >> -eric
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >> On Tue,
Jul 21, 2020 at 12:18 PM David Blaikie via
> llvm-dev <
> >> > > > >> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> On
Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 5:34 AM Alexey Lapshin
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
<alapshin at accesssoftek.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:32 AM Alexey Lapshin
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
><alapshin at accesssoftek.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 1:55 PM Alexey
> Lapshin <
> >> > > > >> >> a.v.lapshin at mail.ru> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >Пятница, 17 июля 2020, 19:42 +03:00 от
> David Blaikie <
> >> > > > >> >> dblaikie at gmail.com>:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:03 AM Fangrui
> Song <
> >> > > > >> >> maskray at google.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> Thanks for the write-up!
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> On 2020-07-16, David Blaikie wrote:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >In short: Perhaps we should switch lld
> to the
> >> > > > >> >> bfd-style tombstoning
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >behavior for a release or two, letting
> users opt-in
> >> > > > >> >> to testing with the new
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >-1/-2 tombstoning in the interim,
> before switching to
> >> > > > >> >> the new tombstone by
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >default (while still having the flag
> to switch back
> >> > > > >> >> when users find
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >surprise places that can't handle the
> new behavior).
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >In long:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >https://reviews.llvm.org/D81784 and
> follow-on
> >> > > > >> >> patches modified the behavior
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >of lld with regards to resolving
> relocations from
> >> > > > >> >> debug sections to dead
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >code (either comdat deduplicated, or
> gc-sections use).
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >A very quick summary of the situation:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >Original Behavior:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - bfd: 1 for debug_ranges(0 would
> prematurely
> >> > > > >> >> terminate the list), 0
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > elsewhere
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - gold/lld: 0+addend everywhere
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >Limitations/bugs:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - bfd/gold/lld
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - doesn't support 0 as a valid
> executable address
> >> > > > >> >> without ambiguities
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - gold/lld
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - ambiguities with large gc'd
> functions combined
> >> > > > >> >> with a .text mapping
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > that starts in relative low addresses
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - premature debug_range termination
> with zero-length
> >> > > > >> >> functions (Clang
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > produces these with
> __builtin_unreachable or
> >> > > > >> >> non-void return
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >type functions
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > without a return statement)
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >New behavior:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - -2 for DWARFv4 debug_loc,
> debug_ranges (-1 is a
> >> > > > >> >> base address specifier
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > there)
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - -1 elsewhere
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - linker flag to customize to other
> values if desired
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >Known issues:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - lldb's line table parsing can't
> handle -1 well at
> >> > > > >> >> all (essentially
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > unusable)
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> Pavel Labath will fix this soon
> >> > > > >> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D83957
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> This is an unhandled address-space
> wraparound problem.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> This pattern is potentially common -
> and other
> >> > > > >> >> downstream DWARF
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> consumers might make similar line table
> handling
> >> > > > >> >> mistakes.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >That's the thing - I'm not sure we can
> really classify
> >> > > > >> >> them as
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >"mistakes". I think bfd.ld's tombstoning
> behavior is
> >> > > > >> >> about the only
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >thing we can reasonably say DWARF
> consumers should
> >> > > > >> >> /probably/ be
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >expected to handle - and I'd imagine in
> many cases they
> >> > > > >> >> haven't been
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >written intentionally to handle it, but
> whatever
> >> > > > >> >> behavior they have
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >has accidentally been sufficient for
> their needs.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > - gdb's line table parsing ends up
> with different
> >> > > > >> >> handling when breaking
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> > on gc'd functions (minor
> functionality issue)
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> This is just a behavior difference, not
> affecting
> >> > > > >> >> users.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> It did break a test if linked with LLD
> (gdb
> >> > > > >> >> intrinsically has lots of
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> failing tests even if built with
> GCC+GNU ld).
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> Previous behavior (when an address is
> zero): a
> >> > > > >> >> breakpoint on a
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> --gc-sections discarded function will
> be redirected to
> >> > > > >> >> a larger line
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> number with debug info, even if that
> line can be an
> >> > > > >> >> unrelated different
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> function.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> New behavior is that the breakpoint is
> on a
> >> > > > >> >> wrapped-around small address.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> GDB 9.3 will restore the previous
> behavior
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> (
> >> > > > >> >>
>
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=a8caed5d7faa639a1e6769eba551d15d8ddd9510
> >> > > > >> >> )
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >I think there's enough risk in this
> work (even given
> >> > > > >> >> the small number of
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >bugs found so far), given there's a
> pretty wide array
> >> > > > >> >> of debug info
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >consumers out there, that we should
> change lld's
> >> > > > >> >> default to match the
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >long-lived bfd strategy. This would
> address my
> >> > > > >> >> original motivation for
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >raising all this (empty functions
> prematurely
> >> > > > >> >> terminating the list), while
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >letting users who want to experiment
> with it, or need
> >> > > > >> >> it (like Alexey), can
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >opt-in to the -1/-2 behavior.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> I think we can only confidently say
> that there is
> >> > > > >> >> enough risk in using
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> tombstone value -1 in .debug_line, but
> I'd not say
> >> > > > >> >> tombstone value -1 in
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> other .debug_* can cause problems.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >Given how many DWARF parsers we've had to
> cleanup or
> >> > > > >> >> migrate off in
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >transitioning to DWARFv5 inside Google, I
> think that's a
> >> > > > >> >> fair bit of
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >evidence the set of parsers isn't as
> narrow/closed as
> >> > > > >> >> we'd like and
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >thus the number of places that might have
> issues isn't
> >> > > > >> >> known/easily
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >exhaustively tested. So I'm not so
> concerned about the
> >> > > > >> >> bugs we've
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >seen, but what that might indicate about
> the things that
> >> > > > >> >> we don't know
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >about and can't test (because we don't
> know about them).
> >> > > > >> >> (of course,
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >the flipside of that is that if we don't
> know about
> >> > > > >> >> them, we can't
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >tell people who own them to go check if
> they work with
> >> > > > >> >> this opt-in
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >feature - so they'll break whenever we
> turn this on by
> >> > > > >> >> default - but
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >perhaps in the interim we can get at
> least a few big LLD
> >> > > > >> >> customers to
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >deploy the feature and flush out some of
> the issues -
> >> > > > >> >> happy for Google
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >to use this internally, hopefully we can
> encourage Apple
> >> > > > >> >> folks, Sony
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >of course already has this semantic so
> nothing to find
> >> > > > >> >> there most
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >likely - Chromium, maybe Firefox, etc)
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> From the other side — when we already
> switched new
> >> > > > >> >> behavior ON as default —
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> then it is easier to discover all these
> unknown cases. We
> >> > > > >> >> have an option restoring
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> old behavior(which should be fine for all
> of the current
> >> > > > >> >> users). Thus, everybody
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> who needs old behavior is able to continue
> using it.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >The cost to those users figuring out that
> it's a problem
> >> > > > >> >> and finding
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >the flags/adding them, etc, is non-zero.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >But, yes, as I said - eventually some of
> that will happen,
> >> > > > >> >> sooner or
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >later. But reducing how much of it happens
> is valuable too.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> I agree. Reducing the impact on customers is
> important.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> Though in this case, as you said, it would be
> done
> >> > > > >> >> anyway(sooner or later).
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> Finally, I do not know what is more
> important: a) get
> >> > > > >> >> feedback faster with
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> the cost of involved users and requiring them
> to make efforts
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> to figure out the problem. or b) test with a
> smaller set of
> >> > > > >> >> users,
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> find more problematic cases, make new
> tombstone value to be
> >> > > > >> >> default later.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> I am kind of preferring a). But, b) is more
> safe and is OK.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> That makes transition more understandable.
> All problems
> >> > > > >> >> would be explicitly seen. Then,
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> If we will know about new problems - we
> could adapt the
> >> > > > >> >> current solution. Similar to this
>suggestion:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> a) .debug_ranges&.debug_loc => -2,
> .debug_line => 0,
> >> > > > >> >> other .debug_* -> -1
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >The issue I have with this is that it's
> reflective of the
> >> > > > >> >> known
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >breakage in some tools that happen to have a
> quick
> >> > > > >> >> turnaround/feedback
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >- and assumes all the other sections are
> significantly less
> >> > > > >> >> likely to
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >have problems with this format - and I don't
> think we have
> >> > > > >> >> enough data
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >to make that estimate.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> We could extend that rule when/if new
> problems become known.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> Or, customers could fix their code or use
> option returning
> >> > > > >> >> old behavior
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> and it would probably not be necessary to
> extend the rule.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >I think having a clear flag for bfd behavior
> or new
> >> > > > >> >> behavior would be
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >good, keeping it bfd-by-default for now,
> evangelizing
> >> > > > >> >> (patch notes,
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >outreach to other projects and tool
> developers) the new
> >> > > > >> >> functionality
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >& then changing the default shortly after an
> LLVM release
> >> > > > >> >> (perhaps 12
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >- but perhaps longer) to give it time to
> bake for
> >> > > > >> >> trunk-following
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >users (ample time for them to pick it up on
> their schedule,
> >> > > > >> >> see what
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >other tools might break, whether they're
> isolated enough to
> >> > > > >> >> expect a
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >quick turnaround or whether we should get
> them updated and
> >> > > > >> >> then wait a
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >while longer.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> yes, doing clear flag for bfd behavior or new
> behavior,
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> and keep it bfd-by-default for now would be
> OK and is more
> >> > > > >> >> safe.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> This would help while dwarf users are
> preparing their
> >> > > > >> >> code to the new solution.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> Is option restoring old behavior not
> enough to solve
> >> > > > >> >> problems caused by new tombstone
>value?
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >I don't personally think it is enough -
> given some of the
> >> > > > >> >> known
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >breakage - I think that points to a fair bit
> of reasonably
> >> > > > >> >> possible
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >unknown breakage. Having a few big (like
> Apple and Google)
> >> > > > >> >> users
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >switch over by default & potentially flush
> out a few more
> >> > > > >> >> issues (or
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >not -but build confidence that there aren't
> more issues) I
> >> > > > >> >> think is an
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >appropriate way to roll out a change like
> this.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >(minor doubt: I wonder how well the bfd
> tombstoning works
> >> > > > >> >> in DWARFv5
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >(rnglists/loclists) or in
> debug_range/debug_loc that uses
> >> > > > >> >> base address
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >specifiers, where the zero-without-addend
> doesn't have a
> >> > > > >> >> chance to
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >make an empty range (because it's not a
> start/end pair,
> >> > > > >> >> it's a
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >start+offset pair - so the offset remains
> non-zero)... if
> >> > > > >> >> bfd
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >tombstoning breaks DWARFv5 parsing (or base
> address
> >> > > > >> >> specifiers in
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >range/loc) in common consumers I might be
> more inclined to
> >> > > > >> >> support
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >enabling new tombstoning by default sooner
> (though if we
> >> > > > >> >> could enable
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >it just for DWARFv5 that might be nice - but
> not practical,
> >> > > > >> >> since the
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >linker doesn't know what DWARF it's linking
> & could be
> >> > > > >> >> linking
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >multiple versions))
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> - From the point of view overlapping address
> ranges,
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> both bfd-solution(using 1) and old lld
> solution(using 0) are
> >> > > > >> >> equal.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>gold and lld's solution was a bit more
> complicated than using
> >> > > > >> >> zero (&
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>bfd's solution uses 1 in debug_ranges, but not
> in other debug
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>sections). lld and gold use 0+addend in ranges.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
right. I am talking about the same(though
> assumed that context
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
instead of detailed explanation). it should be
> >> > > > >> >> "bfd-solution(using 1
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
for debug_ranges) and lld/gold solution(using
> 0+addend)".
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
Thank you for pointing into that.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>0 alone in ranges
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>would be more problematic than any of the other
> deployed
> >> > > > >> >> solutions,
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>because it would lead to the debug_ranges
> contributions being
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>terminated early (0, 0 terminates the list - so
> debug_ranges
> >> > > > >> >> for a CU
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>with one gc'd function mid-way through the
> range list would
> >> > > > >> >> drop the
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>rest of the range lit) - that's why bfd uses 1
> for
> >> > > > >> >> debug_ranges rather
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>than 0 which it uses elsewhere (though the same
> fix should,
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>technically, be applied to debug_loc too for
> the same reasons
> >> > > > >> >> as
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>debug_ranges). the 0+addend approach of
> gold/lld works OK
> >> > > > >> >> (except for
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>the low address overlap) except when there's a
> zero-length
> >> > > > >> >> function,
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>then 0+addend == 0 for the end of the range,
> andy ou get a 0,0
> >> > > > >> >> entry
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>with the premature range list termination
> issues.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> for the "start+offset pair" case they could
> result in
> >> > > > >> >> overlapping address ranges.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>Not quite - the way bfd does things, at least
> in debug_ranges
> >> > > > >> >> without
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>base address specifiers (bit hard to isolate
> for a consumer,
> >> > > > >> >> really -
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>though they could special case zero base
> addresses... sort of)
> >> > > > >> >> the
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>empty ranges are (1, 1) - they're actually
> empty. Whereas lld's
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>approach ends up with (0+addend, 0+addend)
> which is usually
> >> > > > >> >> (0, size)
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>which has issues with overlap on systems that
> have a valid low
> >> > > > >> >> address
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>range (or if you have sufficiently large
> functions).
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
There is a case when size of address range is
> set not by
> >> > > > >> >> relocated value but by constant
value:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
DWARF5:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
DW_RLE_startx_length
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
DW_RLE_start_length
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
{address of deleted code, length}
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
{address of existing code, length}
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
DWARF4:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
base address selection entry: {-1, address of
> deleted code}
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
following range list entry: {0, length}
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
base address selection entry: {-1, address of
> existing code}
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
following range list entry: {0, length}
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
In these cases linker do not see the length of
> address range
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
and could not change it(using 1, or 0, or
> 0+addend) to be zero
> >> > > > >> >> length
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
address range. Thus address ranges could overlap.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
So in both DWARF5 and DWARF4 there are cases
> when address ranges
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
could be overlapped and it could not be solved
> without new
> >> > > > >> >> meaning for tombstone value.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> - From the point of view correct parsing of
> DWARF 5 - it
> >> > > > >> >> looks like they are equally good.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>Yep, DWARFv5 is more complicated - bfd's
> approach would be
> >> > > > >> >> marginally
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>better even for addr+offset encodings in
> debug_rnglists -
> >> > > > >> >> since it'd
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>always produce a 0 for the addr, whereas
> gold/lld's behavior
> >> > > > >> >> can in
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>some cases (eg: "void f1() { }
> __attribute__((nodebug)) void
> >> > > > >> >> f2() { }
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>void f3() { }" with -fno-function-sections -
> you'll end up
> >> > > > >> >> with the
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>range for f3 starting at a non-zero addend -
> this debug info
> >> > > > >> >> will be
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>worse for bfd/ld (if the DWARF for this object
> was included,
> >> > > > >> >> but the
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>whole .text section was discarded (eg: maybe
> there's a global
> >> > > > >> >> variable
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>in this object which is linked in, but
> -gc-section is still
> >> > > > >> >> able to
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>discard the whole .text section as
> unreferenced) then
> >> > > > >> >> gold/lld's
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>approach would make f3 unidentifiable as dead
> code (because it
> >> > > > >> >> doesn't
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>have a tombstone start) but bfd's approach
> would work
> >> > > > >> >> (assuming zero
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>isn't a valid address))
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > I
see. thanks.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> - From the point of view correct parsing of
> DWARF 4 - it
> >> > > > >> >> looks bfd-solution(using 1)
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> is better than the old lld solution(using 0).
> When range
> >> > > > >> >> list entry contains
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> addresses(start+end) which should be
> relocated and for the
> >> > > > >> >> zero-length functions,
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> bfd-solution would result in range list
> entry: {1, 1}, while
> >> > > > >> >> old lld solution
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> would result in {0, 0}, and match with the
> end of list entry.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> That is the original problem that started
> this thread.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>Only comes up for zero-length functions,
> because gold/lld's
> >> > > > >> >> approach
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>was 0+addend, not straight 0.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
right. for zero-length functions.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> Though it looks like there still exist case
> when range list
> >> > > > >> >> could be terminated earlier:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> base address selection entry: {-1, address of
> deleted code}
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> following range list entry: {0, 0} << points
> to the same
> >> > > > >> >> address as set by base address
selection entry and has zero
> size.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>That's a bug in the producer (though a good
> point - I've
> >> > > > >> >> probably made
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>that bug in LLVM) - the linker can't solve that
> problem, since
> >> > > > >> >> the
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>linker can't touch the literal unrelocated 0, 0.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> after linker resolved relocations it would
> look like this,
> >> > > > >> >> for bfd case:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> base address selection entry: {-1, 1}
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> following range list entry: {0, 0}
<<<<<<<<<<<
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> So there still exists {0,0} entry which could
> be considered
> >> > > > >> >> as the end of list entry.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> But old lld solution has the same problem,
> thus it would not
> >> > > > >> >> be new.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> - Additionally, AFAIK gdb has special
> processing for
> >> > > > >> >> overlapped address
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>> ranges starting from 0. Using bfd tombstone
> value could
> >> > > > >> >> break that processing - I would
check it.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>Not sure I understand - presumably gdb's
> special processing is
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>intended to work with bfd's tombstoning, since
> it's been the
> >> > > > >> >> most
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>common/prolific unix linker, the one intended
> to work with gdb
> >> > > > >> >> (they
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
>exist in the same repository) for decades,
> right?
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> > I
think I misunderstood this: "I wonder how well
> the bfd
> >> > > > >> >> tombstoning works in DWARFv5
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
(rnglists/loclists)". I read it as we would like
> to use bfd
> >> > > > >> >> tombstoning(1 for ranges)
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
for rnglists/loclists also.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
So, right. bfd's tombstoning works correctly
> with gdb until 1
> >> > > > >> >> is not used
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
for rnglists/loclists as tombstone value.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> Not
quite parsing this, but I think we're on the
> same page - that
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
bfd's tombstoning "1 for debug_ranges/debug_loc, 0
> (not 0+addend,
> >> > > > >> >> but
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
absolute 0) for everything else (including
> debug_loclists and
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
debug_rnglists)" is probably the most likely to
> work for gdb,
> >> > > > >> >> since
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
it's been deployed for a long time.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> - Dave
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> PS:
Fair point about base address specifiers being
> able to
> >> > > > >> >> produce 0,0
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
entries - wouldn't mind fixing that in LLVM if I
> knew of an easy
> >> > > > >> >> way
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> to
test at compile-time whether the difference
> between two labels
> >> > > > >> >> was
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> zero,
then skip that entry in the lists entirely.
> Would save
> >> > > > >> >> space and
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
address the original issue I had with debug_ranges
> terminating
> >> > > > >> >> early.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
(should've thought about that much earlier than my
> more alarmist
> >> > > > >> >> "oh
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> deer,
we need to fundamentally change how linkers
> resolve
> >> > > > >> >> relocations
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
because everything's been broken and we just
> didn't realize it" -
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> fixing
the compiler not to produce zero-length
> ranges would've
> >> > > > >> >> been
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> less
risky & probably still worth doing - though
> addressing the
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
broader issue to help with your situation of 0 as
> a valid address
> >> > > > >> >> I
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> think
is still good too)
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
Alexey.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> With consideration for satefy for the
> upcoming
> >> > > > >> >> release/11.x, we can make
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> two choices:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> a) .debug_ranges&.debug_loc => -2,
> .debug_line => 0,
> >> > > > >> >> other .debug_* -> -1
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> b) .debug_ranges&.debug_loc => -2, other
> .debug_* => 0
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> Delaying .debug_line => -1 for one or two
> release sounds
> >> > > > >> >> good to me.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> So LLD 11 or 12 linked binaries can be
> debugged by LLDB
> >> > > > >> >> 10. This is a
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> nice property.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> This write-up proposes b), but I'd say a)
> is likely
> >> > > > >> >> sufficient. With the
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> available information, I cannot yet say
> that a) will
> >> > > > >> >> have more risk.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >Risk is about the unknowns - and it still
> seems like a lot
> >> > > > >> >> of
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >unknowns. While there are probably many
> more consumers
> >> > > > >> >> that read
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >.debug_line than other sections, reading
> debug_info (for
> >> > > > >> >> instance) is
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >necessary for inline frames in symbolizing
> - still
> >> > > > >> >> probably one of the
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >most common uses of DWARF I'd guess. (what
> about stack
> >> > > > >> >> unwinding using
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >debug_frame? that'd worry me a bit if
> anyone got /that/
> >> > > > >> >> wrong because
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >of this change)
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> > - chromium/firefox have some tools that
> were broken:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >
> >> > > > >> >>
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1102223#c5
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> This is potentially related to other
> .debug_* (not
> >> > > > >> >> .debug_line)
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> I hope Chromium developers can chime in
> here:) The
> >> > > > >> >> breakage was
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> unfortunate but I don't know how we could
> have avoided
> >> > > > >> >> that. IMHO this
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> is no different from "clang started to
> emit a new
> >> > > > >> >> DW_FORM_* and a
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> postprocessing tool of .debug chokes on
> that" Whether we
> >> > > > >> >> want to
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> suppress that particular DW_FORM_*
> definitely should
> >> > > > >> >> depend on how
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> likely it can cause problems, but we
> can't yet say we
> >> > > > >> >> have to hold off
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> on a feature for a solved (precisely,
> mitigated) problem.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >LLVM has no custom forms and I'd be super
> cautious about
> >> > > > >> >> adding any
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >that were on by default because of how bad
> that breakage
> >> > > > >> >> would be.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >I'm not so concerned about the problems we
> know - but what
> >> > > > >> >> they tell
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >us about the problems that might arise from
> use cases we
> >> > > > >> >> don't know.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >All the other projects out there that might
> have custom
> >> > > > >> >> DWARF parsers
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >to do some ad-hoc things.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >(also, ultimately - given how far-reaching
> this is, I
> >> > > > >> >> think we'll want
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >some tidier flags that are more
> user-focussed. I'd hope
> >> > > > >> >> for a flag
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >that gives BFD-like semantics (though I'd
> be OK with
> >> > > > >> >> fixing debug_loc
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >(using 1 instead of 0) to work the same as
> debug_ranges
> >> > > > >> >> while we're
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >there - a minor divergence from BFD, but
> highly likely to
> >> > > > >> >> not cause
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >problems/fall out naturally from a simple
> implementation
> >> > > > >> >> of parsing
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >that section) - something that's been
> in-use and tested by
> >> > > > >> >> basically
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >everyone for decades. And another flag for
> the new
> >> > > > >> >> semantics (-2 for
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >debug_loc/debug_ranges, -1 everywhere
> else). Customizable
> >> > > > >> >> per-section
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >expression-based support I think is a
> recipe for platform
> >> > > > >> >> divergence &
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >I'd rather it not be available/supported at
> all, but if
> >> > > > >> >> you really
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >want to keep it in, I'd at least rather it
> not be the
> >> > > > >> >> feature we
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >promote to users about how they can
> test/opt in/out of the
> >> > > > >> >> behavior
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >when they're seeing breakages or want to
> test the future
> >> > > > >> >> semantics)
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >I'm not sure how to get the word out to
> DWARF consumers
> >> > > > >> >> that they should
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >consider this new experimental behavior.
> Ray's done a
> >> > > > >> >> good job
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >evangelizing/discussing this with gdb
> and lldb at least
> >> > > > >> >> - and of course
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >having turned it on by default briefly
> has found some
> >> > > > >> >> users (like Chromium)
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >that we probably wouldn't have found no
> matter how long
> >> > > > >> >> we left this as an
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >experimental option... so some things
> are going to
> >> > > > >> >> break when we switch no
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >matter what.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> Thank you for following up with some GNU
> folks on their
> >> > > > >> >> lists!
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> If folks want to follow along the thread:
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >>
> >> > > > >> >>
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2020-June/111376.html
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> We have informed binutils, elfutils-devel
> (elfutils has
> >> > > > >> >> a few debug
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> tools) and gdb. I don't recall that
> anyone has thought
> >> > > > >> >> about problems
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> with a tombstone value.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >P.S: Sony's already been using the -1
> technique with
> >> > > > >> >> their debugger and
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >linker for a while, so they may want to
> keep this on by
> >> > > > >> >> default for SCE -
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >but I'm not sure how to do that in-tree.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >Clang doesn't know which lld
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >version it's running, so whether the
> flag can be
> >> > > > >> >> specified, I would think?
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >(so it'd be hard to have Clang go "if
> SCE and LLD, pass
> >> > > > >> >> the flag to use
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >-1", I think) - if there is a way to
> make that decision
> >> > > > >> >> in the compiler
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >.> >driver+linker, then we'd have a
> question of "default
> >> > > > >> >> new behavior except
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >when tuning for LLDB and GDB" or
> "default bfd behavior
> >> > > > >> >> except when tuning
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> >for SCE".
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> I've been involed in another thread on
> SHF_LINK_ORDER (
> >> > > > >> >>
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2020-
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >July/112415.html ).
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> We may need a way to tell codegen about
> the used linker.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> pcc proposed -mbinutils-version= - This
> is nice in that
> >> > > > >> >> some MC
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> decisions related to -fno-integrated-as
> can use this
> >> > > > >> >> option as well.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> jyknight proposed -mlinker-version= and
> syntax like
> >> > > > >> >> -fuse-ld=bfd:2.34
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >>
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> This may get more complex if the
> generated object file
> >> > > > >> >> want to be linked
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> with more than one linker. This
> discussion probably
> >> > > > >> >> deserves its own
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> > >> thread.
> >> > > > >> >> >> > >>> >
> >
> >> > > > >>
_______________________________________________
> >> > > > >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> > > > >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> > > > >>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
_______________________________________________
> >> > > > > LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> > > > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> > > > >
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > 宋方睿
>
>
>
> --
> 宋方睿
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200805/5b144f5f/attachment-0001.html>