llvm dev - Jan 2021 - [DebugInfo] Different representations of optimised-out variables in DWARF

Hi,

We all agreed that we should avoid DWARF like:
        DW_TAG_formal_parameter
             DW_AT_abstract_origin       (0x0000005a "bar")
for llvm.dbg.value(undef, ...) case, and it will be solved in compiler.

Regarding locstats/dwarfdump statistics, should we also cover this case (if
somehow occurs)? Since at the moment, it handles inlined subroutines as
following:
1)
     DW_TAG_formal_parameter
         DW_AT_location        (DW_OP_reg5 RDI)           -- it will consider
the location coverage as 100% and it will increase the number of variables
processed
         DW_AT_abstract_origin (0x0000005a "bar")

2)
    DW_TAG_formal_parameter
         DW_AT_abstract_origin       (0x0000005a "bar")           --
it will consider the location coverage as 0% and it will increase the number of
variables processed

IMPO, this works intuitively, but if you think that we should handle 2) case in
some other way (e.g. just to ignore such parameter), please let me know.

Best regards,
Djordje


________________________________
From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of David
Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:40 PM
To: Jeremy Morse <jeremy.morse.llvm at gmail.com>
Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [DebugInfo] Different representations of optimised-out
variables in DWARF

I'm a bit confused by some of the stuff in this thread, but rather than
trying to puzzle all of that out, it might be simpler/more agreeable for me to
say this:

We should never produce DWARF like this:

      DW_TAG_formal_parameter
             DW_AT_abstract_origin       (0x0000005a "bar")

(as Paul quoted from the DWARF spec - this should not be necessary/seems just
like wasted bytes)

And locstats/dwarfdump statistics should not produce different results if it
reads DWARF like that compared to DWARF missing this inlined instance entirely.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 7:26 AM Jeremy Morse <jeremy.morse.llvm at
gmail.com<mailto:jeremy.morse.llvm at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,

This was "[llvm-dev] [DebugInfo] The current status of debug values
using multiple machine locations" but I don't want to de-rail Stephens
thread,

Paul wrote:
> I'm not actually sure what causes variables to be dropped from the
DWARF
> entirely, as opposed to them existing but having an unknown location for
> their entire scope; however, outside of our desire to use dwarfdump to
> analyze our debug info it's simply more efficient to omit variables
with no
> location, since they inflate the debug info size and I don't believe
> there's any practical value in having them.
David wrote:
> When does this ^ happen? In optimized builds we include all local variables
> in a "variables" attachment to the DISubprogram, so we
shouldn't be losing
> variables entirely.
> [...]
> I think it's pretty important that we keep them. It helps a user
understand
> that they've not mistyped the name of a variable, etc [...]
This is something that's bothered me for a while, as it messes with
our statistics when changing how variable locations are tracked. Take
this completely contrived C file:

    int foo(int bar) {
      int baz = 12 + bar;
      return baz;
    }

    int qux(int quux) {
      int xyzzy = foo(quux);
      return xyzzy;
    }

Using clang ef0dcb50630 and options "-O3 -g -c", llvm-locstats reports
the object file has five variables in it. If you emit LLVM-IR, and
replace the first operand of all "llvm.dbg.value" intrinsic
invocations with "undef" and compile the IR with llc, then
llvm-locstats still reports five variables. However: if you instead
/delete/ all the invocations of "llvm.dbg.value", four variables are
reported by llvm-locstats. This indicates there's an observable
difference in the way we represent optimised-out variables in DWARF.

The difference between the object files is the way they represent the
inlined copy of "foo", here's the output with undef dbg.values,
followed by the output when I delete all the dbg.value intrinsics:

     DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine
       DW_AT_abstract_origin (0x0000004e "foo")
       DW_AT_low_pc  (0x0000000000000010)
       DW_AT_high_pc (0x0000000000000013)
       DW_AT_call_file       ("/tmp/test.c")
       DW_AT_call_line       (7)
       DW_AT_call_column     (0x0f)

       DW_TAG_formal_parameter
             DW_AT_abstract_origin       (0x0000005a "bar")

      NULL

and:

     DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine
       DW_AT_abstract_origin (0x00000048 "foo")
       DW_AT_low_pc  (0x0000000000000010)
       DW_AT_high_pc (0x0000000000000013)
       DW_AT_call_file       ("/tmp/test.c")
       DW_AT_call_line       (7)
       DW_AT_call_column     (0x0f)

     NULL

When there are dbg.value intrinsics present, then the inlined
subroutine gets an empty DW_TAG_format_parameter that links back to
the abstract origin. If there are no dbg.value intrinsics present, it
does not. As far as I understand it, consumers can still determine
that "bar" exists in the inlined subroutine by looking at the inlined
subroutines abstract origin. This is what the "retained nodes"
collection preserves.

llvm-locstats / llvm-dwarfdump --statistics should probably be taught
to look at the inlined subroutines abstract origin to find all
variables, however, it seems unwise to have internal compiler state
reflected in the output file in the way it is above. The cause of the
empty DW_TAG_formal_parameter being created in
DwarfDebug::collectEntityInfo [0] -- it distinguishes between a
variable that has no location intrinsics, and a variable that has only
empty location intrinsics. Putting a filter in to skip variables with
only empty locations avoids the difference in output, and reduce the
size of .debug_info on a stage2reldeb clang build by about 20Mb, or
~1%.

To ensure this email contains a question: would there be any
objections to adding that filter, and obliging consumers to look in
the inlined subroutines abstract origin to find optimised-out
variables, instead of giving them a list per-inlined-instance?

[0]
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/70e251497c4e26f8cfd85e745459afff97c909ce/llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfDebug.cpp#L1779

--
Thanks,
Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210128/0daf5337/attachment.html>

Hi,

David wrote:
> We should never produce DWARF like this:
A patch to achieve that: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95617

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:19 AM Djordje Todorovic
<Djordje.Todorovic at syrmia.com> wrote:
> IMPO, this works intuitively, but if you think that we should handle 2)
case in some other way (e.g. just to ignore such parameter), please let me know.
As far as I understand it, we shouldn't be counting the number of
variables "processed", and instead be counting:
 * The total number of variables for each scope, by using the inlined
subprograms abstract origins to find in-scope variables that have no
location,
 * The number of concrete variables that have a DW_AT_location

The first number should remain stable regardless of how well we do at
tracking variable locations.

--
Thanks,
Jeremy