Okay! I'll give that a shot now and report back what I find. Thanks, Tamas :-)
-Todd On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Tamas Berghammer <tbergham...@google.com> wrote: > Hi Todd, > > The 64 bit ID of a DIE is built up in the following way: > * The offset of the DIE is in the lower 32 bit > * If we are using SymbolFileDWARF then the higher 32 bit is the offset of > the compile unit this DIE belongs to > * If we are using SymbolFileDWARFDwo then the higher 32 bit is the offset > of the base compile unit in the parent SymbolFileDWARF > * If we are using SymbolFileDWARFDebugMap then the higher 32 bit is the ID > of the SymbolFileDWARF this DIE belongs to > * If the higher 32 bit is 0 then that means that the source of the DIE > isn't specified > > The assert then tries to verify that one of the following conditions holds: > * The higher 32 bit of "id" is 0 what means that we don't have a symbol > file pointer (AFAIK shouldn't happen) or we are coming from a > SymbolFileDWARF > * The higher 32 bit of "cu_id" is 0 what means that the compile unit is at > 0 offset what is the case for the single compile units in > SymbolFileDWARFDwo (and I think for SymbolFileDWARFDebugMap) > * The higher 32 bit of "id" (what is the ID of the SymbolFileDWARF we are > belonging to) matches with the higher 32 bit of "cu_id" (what is the offset > of the compile unit in the base object file) > > After thinking a bit more about the assert I think the problem is that the > way I calculate cu_id is incompatible for the case when we are using > SymbolFileDWARFDebugMap. > > I think changing line 188 to the following should fix the issue: > lldb::user_id_t cu_id = m_cu->GetID()&0xffffffff00000000ull; > > Please give it a try on OSX and let me know if it helps. I tested it on > Linux and it isn't cause any regression there. > > Thanks, > Tamas > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:13 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Tamas, >> >> There is an assert in DWARFDIE.cpp (lines 189 - 191) that we're hitting >> on the OS X side somewhat frequently nowadays: >> >> assert ((id&0xffffffff00000000ull) == 0 || >> >> (cu_id&0xffffffff00000000ll) == 0 || >> >> (id&0xffffffff00000000ull) == (cu_id& >> 0xffffffff00000000ll)); >> >> >> It does not seem to get hit consistently. We're trying to tease apart >> what it is trying to do. It's a bit strange since it is saying that the >> assert should not fire if any one of three clauses is true. But it's hard >> to figure out what exactly is going on there. >> >> >> Can you elucidate what this is trying to do? Thanks! >> >> -- >> -Todd >> > -- -Todd
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
