2019-04-24 15:27:05 +08:00
|
|
|
//===-- PostfixExpression.cpp -----------------------------------*- C++ -*-===//
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions.
|
|
|
|
// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
|
|
|
|
// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// This file implements support for postfix expressions found in several symbol
|
|
|
|
// file formats, and their conversion to DWARF.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "lldb/Symbol/PostfixExpression.h"
|
2019-04-26 16:52:04 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "lldb/Core/dwarf.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "lldb/Utility/Stream.h"
|
2019-04-24 15:27:05 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "llvm/ADT/StringExtras.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
using namespace lldb_private;
|
|
|
|
using namespace lldb_private::postfix;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static llvm::Optional<BinaryOpNode::OpType>
|
|
|
|
GetBinaryOpType(llvm::StringRef token) {
|
|
|
|
if (token.size() != 1)
|
|
|
|
return llvm::None;
|
|
|
|
switch (token[0]) {
|
|
|
|
case '@':
|
|
|
|
return BinaryOpNode::Align;
|
|
|
|
case '-':
|
|
|
|
return BinaryOpNode::Minus;
|
|
|
|
case '+':
|
|
|
|
return BinaryOpNode::Plus;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return llvm::None;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static llvm::Optional<UnaryOpNode::OpType>
|
|
|
|
GetUnaryOpType(llvm::StringRef token) {
|
|
|
|
if (token == "^")
|
|
|
|
return UnaryOpNode::Deref;
|
|
|
|
return llvm::None;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Node *postfix::Parse(llvm::StringRef expr, llvm::BumpPtrAllocator &alloc) {
|
|
|
|
llvm::SmallVector<Node *, 4> stack;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
llvm::StringRef token;
|
|
|
|
while (std::tie(token, expr) = getToken(expr), !token.empty()) {
|
|
|
|
if (auto op_type = GetBinaryOpType(token)) {
|
|
|
|
// token is binary operator
|
|
|
|
if (stack.size() < 2)
|
|
|
|
return nullptr;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Node *right = stack.pop_back_val();
|
|
|
|
Node *left = stack.pop_back_val();
|
|
|
|
stack.push_back(MakeNode<BinaryOpNode>(alloc, *op_type, *left, *right));
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (auto op_type = GetUnaryOpType(token)) {
|
|
|
|
// token is unary operator
|
|
|
|
if (stack.empty())
|
|
|
|
return nullptr;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Node *operand = stack.pop_back_val();
|
|
|
|
stack.push_back(MakeNode<UnaryOpNode>(alloc, *op_type, *operand));
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t value;
|
|
|
|
if (to_integer(token, value, 10)) {
|
|
|
|
// token is integer literal
|
|
|
|
stack.push_back(MakeNode<IntegerNode>(alloc, value));
|
|
|
|
continue;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stack.push_back(MakeNode<SymbolNode>(alloc, token));
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (stack.size() != 1)
|
|
|
|
return nullptr;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return stack.back();
|
|
|
|
}
|
2019-04-26 16:52:04 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namespace {
|
|
|
|
class SymbolResolver : public Visitor<bool> {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
SymbolResolver(llvm::function_ref<Node *(SymbolNode &symbol)> replacer)
|
|
|
|
: m_replacer(replacer) {}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
using Visitor<bool>::Dispatch;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
bool Visit(BinaryOpNode &binary, Node *&) override {
|
|
|
|
return Dispatch(binary.Left()) && Dispatch(binary.Right());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2019-04-30 21:33:18 +08:00
|
|
|
bool Visit(InitialValueNode &, Node *&) override { return true; }
|
|
|
|
bool Visit(IntegerNode &, Node *&) override { return true; }
|
|
|
|
bool Visit(RegisterNode &, Node *&) override { return true; }
|
2019-04-26 16:52:04 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool Visit(SymbolNode &symbol, Node *&ref) override {
|
|
|
|
if (Node *replacement = m_replacer(symbol)) {
|
|
|
|
ref = replacement;
|
|
|
|
if (replacement != &symbol)
|
|
|
|
return Dispatch(ref);
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool Visit(UnaryOpNode &unary, Node *&) override {
|
|
|
|
return Dispatch(unary.Operand());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
llvm::function_ref<Node *(SymbolNode &symbol)> m_replacer;
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class DWARFCodegen : public Visitor<> {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
DWARFCodegen(Stream &stream) : m_out_stream(stream) {}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
using Visitor<>::Dispatch;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
C.128 override, virtual keyword handling
Summary:
According to [C128] "Virtual functions should specify exactly one
of `virtual`, `override`, or `final`", I've added override where a
virtual function is overriden but the explicit `override` keyword
was missing. Whenever both `virtual` and `override` were specified,
I removed `virtual`. As C.128 puts it:
> [...] writing more than one of these three is both redundant and
> a potential source of errors.
I anticipate a discussion about whether or not to add `override` to
destructors but I went for it because of an example in [ISOCPP1000].
Let me repeat the comment for you here:
Consider this code:
```
struct Base {
virtual ~Base(){}
};
struct SubClass : Base {
~SubClass() {
std::cout << "It works!\n";
}
};
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<Base> ptr = std::make_unique<SubClass>();
}
```
If for some odd reason somebody removes the `virtual` keyword from the
`Base` struct, the code will no longer print `It works!`. So adding
`override` to destructors actively protects us from accidentally
breaking our code at runtime.
[C128]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#c128-virtual-functions-should-specify-exactly-one-of-virtual-override-or-final
[ISOCPP1000]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/issues/1000#issuecomment-476951555
Reviewers: teemperor, JDevlieghere, davide, shafik
Reviewed By: teemperor
Subscribers: kwk, arphaman, kadircet, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61440
llvm-svn: 359868
2019-05-03 18:03:28 +08:00
|
|
|
void Visit(BinaryOpNode &binary, Node *&) override;
|
2019-04-26 16:52:04 +08:00
|
|
|
|
C.128 override, virtual keyword handling
Summary:
According to [C128] "Virtual functions should specify exactly one
of `virtual`, `override`, or `final`", I've added override where a
virtual function is overriden but the explicit `override` keyword
was missing. Whenever both `virtual` and `override` were specified,
I removed `virtual`. As C.128 puts it:
> [...] writing more than one of these three is both redundant and
> a potential source of errors.
I anticipate a discussion about whether or not to add `override` to
destructors but I went for it because of an example in [ISOCPP1000].
Let me repeat the comment for you here:
Consider this code:
```
struct Base {
virtual ~Base(){}
};
struct SubClass : Base {
~SubClass() {
std::cout << "It works!\n";
}
};
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<Base> ptr = std::make_unique<SubClass>();
}
```
If for some odd reason somebody removes the `virtual` keyword from the
`Base` struct, the code will no longer print `It works!`. So adding
`override` to destructors actively protects us from accidentally
breaking our code at runtime.
[C128]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#c128-virtual-functions-should-specify-exactly-one-of-virtual-override-or-final
[ISOCPP1000]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/issues/1000#issuecomment-476951555
Reviewers: teemperor, JDevlieghere, davide, shafik
Reviewed By: teemperor
Subscribers: kwk, arphaman, kadircet, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61440
llvm-svn: 359868
2019-05-03 18:03:28 +08:00
|
|
|
void Visit(InitialValueNode &val, Node *&) override;
|
2019-04-30 21:33:18 +08:00
|
|
|
|
C.128 override, virtual keyword handling
Summary:
According to [C128] "Virtual functions should specify exactly one
of `virtual`, `override`, or `final`", I've added override where a
virtual function is overriden but the explicit `override` keyword
was missing. Whenever both `virtual` and `override` were specified,
I removed `virtual`. As C.128 puts it:
> [...] writing more than one of these three is both redundant and
> a potential source of errors.
I anticipate a discussion about whether or not to add `override` to
destructors but I went for it because of an example in [ISOCPP1000].
Let me repeat the comment for you here:
Consider this code:
```
struct Base {
virtual ~Base(){}
};
struct SubClass : Base {
~SubClass() {
std::cout << "It works!\n";
}
};
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<Base> ptr = std::make_unique<SubClass>();
}
```
If for some odd reason somebody removes the `virtual` keyword from the
`Base` struct, the code will no longer print `It works!`. So adding
`override` to destructors actively protects us from accidentally
breaking our code at runtime.
[C128]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#c128-virtual-functions-should-specify-exactly-one-of-virtual-override-or-final
[ISOCPP1000]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/issues/1000#issuecomment-476951555
Reviewers: teemperor, JDevlieghere, davide, shafik
Reviewed By: teemperor
Subscribers: kwk, arphaman, kadircet, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61440
llvm-svn: 359868
2019-05-03 18:03:28 +08:00
|
|
|
void Visit(IntegerNode &integer, Node *&) override {
|
2019-04-26 16:52:04 +08:00
|
|
|
m_out_stream.PutHex8(DW_OP_constu);
|
|
|
|
m_out_stream.PutULEB128(integer.GetValue());
|
2019-04-30 21:33:18 +08:00
|
|
|
++m_stack_depth;
|
2019-04-26 16:52:04 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
C.128 override, virtual keyword handling
Summary:
According to [C128] "Virtual functions should specify exactly one
of `virtual`, `override`, or `final`", I've added override where a
virtual function is overriden but the explicit `override` keyword
was missing. Whenever both `virtual` and `override` were specified,
I removed `virtual`. As C.128 puts it:
> [...] writing more than one of these three is both redundant and
> a potential source of errors.
I anticipate a discussion about whether or not to add `override` to
destructors but I went for it because of an example in [ISOCPP1000].
Let me repeat the comment for you here:
Consider this code:
```
struct Base {
virtual ~Base(){}
};
struct SubClass : Base {
~SubClass() {
std::cout << "It works!\n";
}
};
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<Base> ptr = std::make_unique<SubClass>();
}
```
If for some odd reason somebody removes the `virtual` keyword from the
`Base` struct, the code will no longer print `It works!`. So adding
`override` to destructors actively protects us from accidentally
breaking our code at runtime.
[C128]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#c128-virtual-functions-should-specify-exactly-one-of-virtual-override-or-final
[ISOCPP1000]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/issues/1000#issuecomment-476951555
Reviewers: teemperor, JDevlieghere, davide, shafik
Reviewed By: teemperor
Subscribers: kwk, arphaman, kadircet, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61440
llvm-svn: 359868
2019-05-03 18:03:28 +08:00
|
|
|
void Visit(RegisterNode ®, Node *&) override;
|
2019-04-26 16:52:04 +08:00
|
|
|
|
C.128 override, virtual keyword handling
Summary:
According to [C128] "Virtual functions should specify exactly one
of `virtual`, `override`, or `final`", I've added override where a
virtual function is overriden but the explicit `override` keyword
was missing. Whenever both `virtual` and `override` were specified,
I removed `virtual`. As C.128 puts it:
> [...] writing more than one of these three is both redundant and
> a potential source of errors.
I anticipate a discussion about whether or not to add `override` to
destructors but I went for it because of an example in [ISOCPP1000].
Let me repeat the comment for you here:
Consider this code:
```
struct Base {
virtual ~Base(){}
};
struct SubClass : Base {
~SubClass() {
std::cout << "It works!\n";
}
};
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<Base> ptr = std::make_unique<SubClass>();
}
```
If for some odd reason somebody removes the `virtual` keyword from the
`Base` struct, the code will no longer print `It works!`. So adding
`override` to destructors actively protects us from accidentally
breaking our code at runtime.
[C128]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#c128-virtual-functions-should-specify-exactly-one-of-virtual-override-or-final
[ISOCPP1000]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/issues/1000#issuecomment-476951555
Reviewers: teemperor, JDevlieghere, davide, shafik
Reviewed By: teemperor
Subscribers: kwk, arphaman, kadircet, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61440
llvm-svn: 359868
2019-05-03 18:03:28 +08:00
|
|
|
void Visit(SymbolNode &symbol, Node *&) override {
|
2019-04-26 16:52:04 +08:00
|
|
|
llvm_unreachable("Symbols should have been resolved by now!");
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
C.128 override, virtual keyword handling
Summary:
According to [C128] "Virtual functions should specify exactly one
of `virtual`, `override`, or `final`", I've added override where a
virtual function is overriden but the explicit `override` keyword
was missing. Whenever both `virtual` and `override` were specified,
I removed `virtual`. As C.128 puts it:
> [...] writing more than one of these three is both redundant and
> a potential source of errors.
I anticipate a discussion about whether or not to add `override` to
destructors but I went for it because of an example in [ISOCPP1000].
Let me repeat the comment for you here:
Consider this code:
```
struct Base {
virtual ~Base(){}
};
struct SubClass : Base {
~SubClass() {
std::cout << "It works!\n";
}
};
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<Base> ptr = std::make_unique<SubClass>();
}
```
If for some odd reason somebody removes the `virtual` keyword from the
`Base` struct, the code will no longer print `It works!`. So adding
`override` to destructors actively protects us from accidentally
breaking our code at runtime.
[C128]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#c128-virtual-functions-should-specify-exactly-one-of-virtual-override-or-final
[ISOCPP1000]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/issues/1000#issuecomment-476951555
Reviewers: teemperor, JDevlieghere, davide, shafik
Reviewed By: teemperor
Subscribers: kwk, arphaman, kadircet, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61440
llvm-svn: 359868
2019-05-03 18:03:28 +08:00
|
|
|
void Visit(UnaryOpNode &unary, Node *&) override;
|
2019-04-26 16:52:04 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stream &m_out_stream;
|
2019-04-30 21:33:18 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// The number keeping track of the evaluation stack depth at any given
|
|
|
|
/// moment. Used for implementing InitialValueNodes. We start with
|
|
|
|
/// m_stack_depth = 1, assuming that the initial value is already on the
|
|
|
|
/// stack. This initial value will be the value of all InitialValueNodes. If
|
|
|
|
/// the expression does not contain InitialValueNodes, then m_stack_depth is
|
|
|
|
/// not used, and the generated expression will run correctly even without an
|
|
|
|
/// initial value.
|
|
|
|
size_t m_stack_depth = 1;
|
2019-04-26 16:52:04 +08:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
} // namespace
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void DWARFCodegen::Visit(BinaryOpNode &binary, Node *&) {
|
|
|
|
Dispatch(binary.Left());
|
|
|
|
Dispatch(binary.Right());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
switch (binary.GetOpType()) {
|
|
|
|
case BinaryOpNode::Plus:
|
|
|
|
m_out_stream.PutHex8(DW_OP_plus);
|
|
|
|
// NOTE: can be optimized by using DW_OP_plus_uconst opcpode
|
|
|
|
// if right child node is constant value
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case BinaryOpNode::Minus:
|
|
|
|
m_out_stream.PutHex8(DW_OP_minus);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
case BinaryOpNode::Align:
|
|
|
|
// emit align operator a @ b as
|
|
|
|
// a & ~(b - 1)
|
|
|
|
// NOTE: implicitly assuming that b is power of 2
|
|
|
|
m_out_stream.PutHex8(DW_OP_lit1);
|
|
|
|
m_out_stream.PutHex8(DW_OP_minus);
|
|
|
|
m_out_stream.PutHex8(DW_OP_not);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
m_out_stream.PutHex8(DW_OP_and);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2019-04-30 21:33:18 +08:00
|
|
|
--m_stack_depth; // Two pops, one push.
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void DWARFCodegen::Visit(InitialValueNode &, Node *&) {
|
|
|
|
// We never go below the initial stack, so we can pick the initial value from
|
|
|
|
// the bottom of the stack at any moment.
|
|
|
|
assert(m_stack_depth >= 1);
|
|
|
|
m_out_stream.PutHex8(DW_OP_pick);
|
|
|
|
m_out_stream.PutHex8(m_stack_depth - 1);
|
|
|
|
++m_stack_depth;
|
2019-04-26 16:52:04 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void DWARFCodegen::Visit(RegisterNode ®, Node *&) {
|
|
|
|
uint32_t reg_num = reg.GetRegNum();
|
|
|
|
assert(reg_num != LLDB_INVALID_REGNUM);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (reg_num > 31) {
|
|
|
|
m_out_stream.PutHex8(DW_OP_bregx);
|
|
|
|
m_out_stream.PutULEB128(reg_num);
|
|
|
|
} else
|
|
|
|
m_out_stream.PutHex8(DW_OP_breg0 + reg_num);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
m_out_stream.PutSLEB128(0);
|
2019-04-30 21:33:18 +08:00
|
|
|
++m_stack_depth;
|
2019-04-26 16:52:04 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void DWARFCodegen::Visit(UnaryOpNode &unary, Node *&) {
|
|
|
|
Dispatch(unary.Operand());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
switch (unary.GetOpType()) {
|
|
|
|
case UnaryOpNode::Deref:
|
|
|
|
m_out_stream.PutHex8(DW_OP_deref);
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
2019-04-30 21:33:18 +08:00
|
|
|
// Stack depth unchanged.
|
2019-04-26 16:52:04 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bool postfix::ResolveSymbols(
|
|
|
|
Node *&node, llvm::function_ref<Node *(SymbolNode &)> replacer) {
|
|
|
|
return SymbolResolver(replacer).Dispatch(node);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void postfix::ToDWARF(Node &node, Stream &stream) {
|
|
|
|
Node *ptr = &node;
|
|
|
|
DWARFCodegen(stream).Dispatch(ptr);
|
|
|
|
}
|