That doesn't seem to be the DWARF I'm seeing from Clang (& it'd be surprising
if we used the typedef (or otherwise non-canonical) name in the class name):
Finally getting back to this….. Ha. We don't unwrap the typedefs ("name as it
is in the source"), while the upstream compiler does.
Providing the template-parameter DIEs is still the correct thing to do per the
DWARF spec.
--paulr
From: David Blaikie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 11:21 AM
To: Marshall, Peter; llvm-dev
Cc: Robinson, Paul
Subject: Re: [PATCH] D14358: DWARF's forward decl of a template should have
template parameters.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 6:16 AM,
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
Sorry for the delay, I've been out of the office.
I think this example shows that name matching does not always work:
template<typename T> class A {
public:
A(T val);
private:
T x;
};
struct B {
typedef float MONKEY;
A<MONKEY> *p;
};
B b;
struct C {
typedef int MONKEY;
A<MONKEY> *p;
};
C c;
This gives this DWARF:
+-0000003f DW_TAG_structure_type "B"
-DW_AT_name DW_FORM_strp "B"
+-00000047 DW_TAG_member "p"
-DW_AT_name DW_FORM_strp "p"
+-DW_AT_type DW_FORM_ref4 0x00000054
+-00000054 DW_TAG_pointer_type
+-DW_AT_type DW_FORM_ref4 0x00000059
+-00000059 DW_TAG_class_type "A<MONKEY>"
-DW_AT_name DW_FORM_strp "A<MONKEY>"
-DW_AT_declaration DW_FORM_flag_present
+-00000073 DW_TAG_structure_type "C"
-DW_AT_name DW_FORM_strp "C"
+-0000007b DW_TAG_member "p"
-DW_AT_name DW_FORM_strp "p"
+-DW_AT_type DW_FORM_ref4 0x00000088
+-00000088 DW_TAG_pointer_type
+-DW_AT_type DW_FORM_ref4 0x0000008d
+-0000008d DW_TAG_class_type "A<MONKEY>"
-DW_AT_name DW_FORM_strp "A<MONKEY>"
-DW_AT_declaration DW_FORM_flag_present
That doesn't seem to be the DWARF I'm seeing from Clang (& it'd be surprising
if we used the typedef (or otherwise non-canonical) name in the class name):
(I've trimmed a few irrelevant attributes)
0x0000001e: DW_TAG_variable [2]
DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] ( .debug_str[0x0000004c] = "b")
DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (cu + 0x0033 => {0x00000033})
0x00000033: DW_TAG_structure_type [3] *
DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] ( .debug_str[0x00000059] = "B")
0x0000003b: DW_TAG_member [4]
DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] ( .debug_str[0x0000004e] = "p")
DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (cu + 0x0048 => {0x00000048})
0x00000047: NULL
0x00000048: DW_TAG_pointer_type [5]
DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (cu + 0x004d => {0x0000004d})
0x0000004d: DW_TAG_class_type [6]
DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] ( .debug_str[0x00000050] =
"A<float>")
DW_AT_declaration [DW_FORM_flag_present] (true)
0x00000052: DW_TAG_variable [2]
DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] ( .debug_str[0x0000005b] = "c")
DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (cu + 0x0067 => {0x00000067})
0x00000067: DW_TAG_structure_type [3] *
DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] ( .debug_str[0x00000064] = "C")
0x0000006f: DW_TAG_member [4]
DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] ( .debug_str[0x0000004e] = "p")
DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (cu + 0x007c => {0x0000007c})
0x0000007b: NULL
0x0000007c: DW_TAG_pointer_type [5]
DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (cu + 0x0081 => {0x00000081})
0x00000081: DW_TAG_class_type [6]
DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] ( .debug_str[0x0000005d] =
"A<int>")
DW_AT_declaration [DW_FORM_flag_present] (true)
As there are no template parameters for the forward declaration of either
A<MONKEY>
they are indistinguishable.
The reason we currently have no need for the parameters in a template name is
because we
reconstruct template names from their parameter tags. This allow the pretty
printing to match
the templates from the DWARF to match our demangled symbols from the ELF symbol
table.
-Pete
From: "Robinson, Paul"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: David Blaikie <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"Marshall, Peter"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc:
"[email protected]<mailto:reviews%2bd14358%2bpublic%[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:reviews%2bd14358%2bpublic%[email protected]>>,
"cfe-commits ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: 10/11/2015 01:08
Subject: RE: [PATCH] D14358: DWARF's forward decl of a template should
have template parameters.
________________________________
| when/where/why are types acquired from the mangled names of ELF symbols,
rather than from corresponding DWARF?
Pete, can you help me out here? David seems to want an ironclad case for not
being able to do something any other way, before he will let me put the
template type parameters on the declaration of a template instantiation. (He
does not deny that doing so would be valid DWARF, only that it can't possibly
be *useful* DWARF.)
Thanks,
--paulr
From: David Blaikie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:08 PM
To: Robinson, Paul
Cc:
[email protected]<mailto:reviews%2bd14358%2bpublic%[email protected]>;
cfe-commits ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] D14358: DWARF's forward decl of a template should have
template parameters.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Robinson, Paul
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
| Why is matching by name insufficient/not correct?
I'm told we look at the mangled names in the ELF symbol table, demangle them,
and look in the DWARF for the corresponding types.
Not quite sure I follow that - when/where/why are types acquired from the
mangled names of ELF symbols, rather than from corresponding DWARF? (eg: the
DWARF describing the type of a function's parameter?)
Now, the mangled name (for predefined types in particular) provides a type
description, not the name-as-emitted-by-Clang, and in fact the same type can
have more than one name ('const int' and 'int const' for a trivial example).
The name Clang provides in the DWARF does not necessarily match the name
produced by the demangler; this makes name-matching way more trouble than you'd
think. We're not interested in teaching the debugger how to parse template
instantiation names.
Having the template type parameter means we have an unambiguous description of
the type, and can match it easily.
| including unreferenced entities fails source fidelity
I'll assume you meant to say _excluding_ unreferenced entities fails source
fidelity,
Indeed
which is quite true, but there is a valid engineering tradeoff in that what the
DWARF actually contains (or not, in the case of, say, unused function
declarations or unreferenced class contents) represents one possible valid
source that could have produced the same object. (I'm curious why an
unreferenced formal parameter of a function still gets described, if this is
your argument for omitting template parameters.)
Omitting parameters would make the function description unusable for callers,
for example - so there's some value in describing them so that a debugger can
evaluate expressions involving calls to the function, yes?
Omitting template parameters however is not the same as omitting unreferenced
entities, because the template parameters *are* referenced—by the template
instantiation itself;
Not quite sure I follow that logic. It's quite possible to have unreferenced
template parameters:
template<typename>
void f() { }
and, omitting them from the source does not produce a valid program.
Omitting the names still produces a valid program - though I'm not quite sure
which omission you're referring to. (& even if we omit the names, we still
describe the parameters - as we do for unused/unnamed function parameters)
Now, one of the 3 debuggers Clang explicitly supports (i.e. gdb) seems not to
mind that they're missing, but the other two would benefit from having these
things, and I would really like to have Clang produce these things.
It sounds like the LLDB bug you cited is being treated as an LLDB bug, not a
Clang one, for now. So I'm not sure it's relevant to justifying Clang changes
just yet, unless they come back & suggest that they don't actually have enough
information to implement the features they would like to implement.
& equally I'd like to understand the features that you'd like to build with
this info that can't be built without it (as a minimum: features that GDB
doesn't support, since any features GDB does support seem to be implementable
with the current info Clang and GCC emit)
- David
Thanks,
--paulr
From: David Blaikie [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 1:46 PM
To: Robinson, Paul
Cc:
[email protected]<mailto:reviews%2bd14358%2bpublic%[email protected]>;
cfe-commits ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] D14358: DWARF's forward decl of a template should have
template parameters.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Robinson, Paul
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
| What was your primary motivation?
A similar concern to PR20455 from our own debugger. It much helps matching up
the forward declaration and definition to have the parameters properly
specified.
Why is matching by name insufficient/not correct?
| maybe it's possible to remangle the template using just the string name
I have no idea what you're talking about here.
Looking at PR20455 you linked, LLDB isn't finding the right function because of
mangling:
call to a function 'basic_string<char, char_traits<char> >::operator[](int)
const' ('_ZNK12basic_stringIc17char_traits<char>EixEi') that is not present in
the target
It hasn't created the correct mangled name of operator[] - what I was saying is
it might be possible to parse the template parameter from the pretty name, and
use that to produce the mangled name. It /looks/ like GDB can manage this.
Maybe only because we also include the mangled name of the member function? Not
sure.
| | Choosing to emit a forward/incomplete declaration in the first place fails
source fidelity,
| How so?
When the source has a full definition but Clang chooses to emit only the
declaration, per CGDebugInfo.cpp/shouldOmitDefinition().
Sure, in the same way that including unreferenced entities fails source
fidelity - all tradeoffs to reduce debug info size.
Though the behavior is visible in a simpler example that doesn't have that
failing (& if your change goes in, the test case should probably be simplified
like this):
template<typename T> struct foo;
foo<int> *f;
--paulr
From: David Blaikie [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 12:10 AM
To: Robinson, Paul
Cc:
[email protected]<mailto:reviews%2bd14358%2bpublic%[email protected]>;
cfe-commits ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] D14358: DWARF's forward decl of a template should have
template parameters.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:32 PM, Robinson, Paul
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Would citing PR20455 help? It wasn't actually my primary motivation but it's
not too far off. Having the template parameters there lets you know what's
going on in the DWARF, without having to fetch and parse the name string of
every struct you come across. Actually I'm not sure parsing the name string is
unambiguous either; each parameter is either a typename, or an expression, but
without the parameter DIEs you don't know which, a-priori. (What does <foo>
mean? Depends on whether you think it should be a type name or a value; you
can't tell, syntactically, you have to do some lookups. Ah, but if you had the
parameter DIEs, you would Just Know.)
For LLDB's needs, I'm not sure it's sufficient either - but I wouldn't mind an
answer before we use it as the basis for this change (it sounds like maybe it's
possible to remangle the template using just the string name, rather than
needing an explicit representation of the parameters)
What was your primary motivation?
Choosing to emit a forward/incomplete declaration in the first place fails
source fidelity,
How so? You might have only a template declaration (template<typename T> struct
foo; foo<int> *f;) or you may've only instantiated the declaration (the C++
language requires you to instantiate or avoid instantiating certain things in
certain places, so in some contexts you /only/ have an instantiated
declaration, not a definition)
but it is a practical engineering tradeoff of compile/link performance against
utility; and, after all, the source *could* have been written that way, with no
semantic difference. But, if we're going to emit a white-lie incomplete
declaration, we should do so correctly.
Again, "correct" in DWARF is a fairly nebulous concept.
--paulr
P.S. We should talk about this forward-declaration tactic wrt LTO sometime. I
have a case where a nested class got forward-declared; it's entirely
conceivable that the outer class with the inner forward-declared class would
end up being picked by LTO, leaving the user with no debug info for the inner
class contents.
I believe this Just Works(tm). The things that can vary per-insntance of a type
(implicit special members, member template implicit specializations, and nested
types*) are not added to the type's child list, but they reference the child as
their parent. So they continue to apply no matter which instance of the type is
picked for uniquing (because of the name-based referencing, so the nested type
definition just says "my parent is _Zfoo" and whatever _Zfoo we end up picking
in the LTO linking/metadata deduplication will serve that role just fine)
* we could just do a better job of modelling nested types (& other non-globally
scoped types) in a way that more closely models the source by emitting a
declaration where they were declared, and a definition where they are defined
(with the usual DW_AT_specification to wire them up)
From: David Blaikie [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 8:30 PM
To:
[email protected]<mailto:reviews%2bd14358%2bpublic%[email protected]>;
Robinson, Paul
Subject: Re: [PATCH] D14358: DWARF's forward decl of a template should have
template parameters.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Paul Robinson via cfe-commits
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
probinson added a comment.
GCC 4.8.4 on Linux doesn't produce these, but DWARF 4 section 5.5.8 says a
class template instantiation is just like the equivalent non-template class
entry, with the exception of the template parameter entries. I read that as
meaning an incomplete description (i.e. with DW_AT_declaration) lets you omit
all the other children, but not the template parameters.
As usual, I think it's pretty hard to argue that DWARF /requires/ anything
(permissive & all that). And I'm not sure that having these is particularly
valuable/useful - what use do you have in mind for them?
Wouldn't hurt to have some size info about the cost here, though I don't
imagine it's massive, it does open us up to emitting a whole slew of new types
(the types the template is instantiated with, and anything that depends on -
breaking/avoiding type edges can, in my experience, be quite beneficial (I
described an example of this in my lightning talk last week)).
I don't think omitting the template DIEs was an intentional optimization, in
the sense of being a decision separate from deciding to emit the
incomplete/forward declaration in the first place. They were just omitted
because we were omitting everything, but everything turns out to be
non-compliant.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14358
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
you have received this email in error please notify
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for all
known viruses.
Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited
Registered Office: 10 Great Marlborough Street, London W1F 7LP, United Kingdom
Registered in England: 3277793
**********************************************************************
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
