similar to: Range lists, zero-length functions, linker gc

As has been mentioned elsewhere, Sony generally fixes up references from debug info to stripped functions (of any length) using -1, because that's a less-likely-to-be-real address than 0x0 or 0x1. (0x0 is a typical base address for shared libraries, I'd think using it has the potential to mislead various consumers.) For .debug_ranges we use -2, because both a 0/0 pair and a -1/-1 pair

On 2020-05-28, David Blaikie wrote: >On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:52 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> >wrote: > >> As has been mentioned elsewhere, Sony generally fixes up references from >> debug info to stripped functions (of any length) using -1, because that’s a >> less-likely-to-be-real address than 0x0 or 0x1. (0x0 is a typical base >>

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:03 AM Alexey Lapshin <alapshin at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > > >So there have been several recent discussions about the issues around > > >DWARF-agnostic linking and gc-sections, linkonce function definitions > being > > >dropped, etc - and just how much DWARF-awareness would be suitable > > >in a linker to

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:21 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> > > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 1:07 AM > > To: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > > Cc: Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>; Alexey Lapshin > >

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:20 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 5:00 PM > > To: Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> > > Cc: Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com>; Alexey Lapshin > >

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 8:50 PM Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> wrote: > > On 2020-05-29, David Blaikie wrote: > >On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:20 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > >> > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:21 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > On 2020-05-28, David

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 9:57 AM Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> wrote: > > > On 2020-05-30, David Blaikie wrote: > >On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 8:50 PM Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 2020-05-29, David Blaikie wrote: > >> >On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:20 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: >

> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Range lists, zero-length functions, linker gc > > On 2020-05-28, David Blaikie wrote: > >On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:52 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> > >wrote: > > > >> As has been mentioned elsewhere, Sony generally fixes up references > from > >> debug info to stripped functions (of any length) using

>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).

> 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.

>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 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

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

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_* >On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 7:53 AM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev ><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi All,

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

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 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

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"

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

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:27 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 5:31 PM > > To: Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> > > Cc: jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > >