Summary:
Based on Fred's patch here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D6771
I can't seem to commandeer the old review, so I'm creating a new one.
With that change the locations exrpessions are pretty printed inline in the
DIE tree. The output looks like this for debug_loc entries:
DW_AT_location [DW_FORM_data4] (0x00000000
0x0000000000000001 - 0x000000000000000b: DW_OP_consts +3
0x000000000000000b - 0x0000000000000012: DW_OP_consts +7
0x0000000000000012 - 0x000000000000001b: DW_OP_reg0 RAX, DW_OP_piece 0x4
0x000000000000001b - 0x0000000000000024: DW_OP_breg5 RDI+0)
And like this for debug_loc.dwo entries:
DW_AT_location [DW_FORM_sec_offset] (0x00000000
Addr idx 2 (w/ length 190): DW_OP_consts +0, DW_OP_stack_value
Addr idx 3 (w/ length 23): DW_OP_reg0 RAX, DW_OP_piece 0x4)
Simple locations without ranges are printed inline:
DW_AT_location [DW_FORM_block1] (DW_OP_reg4 RSI, DW_OP_piece 0x4, DW_OP_bit_piece 0x20 0x0)
The debug_loc(.dwo) dumping in changed accordingly to factor the code.
Reviewers: dblaikie, aprantl, friss
Subscribers: mgorny, javed.absar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, JDevlieghere
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37123
llvm-svn: 312042
There is no situation where this rarely-used argument cannot be
substituted with a DIExpression and removing it allows us to simplify
the DWARF backend. Note that this patch does not yet remove any of
the newly dead code.
rdar://problem/33580047
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35951
llvm-svn: 309426
Summary:
This patch is part of 3 patches that together form a single patch, but must be introduced in stages in order not to break things.
The way that LLVM interprets DW_OP_plus in DIExpression nodes is basically that of the DW_OP_plus_uconst operator since LLVM expects an unsigned constant operand. This unnecessarily restricts the DW_OP_plus operator, preventing it from being used to describe the evaluation of runtime values on the expression stack. These patches try to align the semantics of DW_OP_plus and DW_OP_minus with that of the DWARF definition, which pops two elements off the expression stack, performs the operation and pushes the result back on the stack.
This is done in three stages:
• The first patch (LLVM) adds support for DW_OP_plus_uconst.
• The second patch (Clang) contains changes all its uses from DW_OP_plus to DW_OP_plus_uconst.
• The third patch (LLVM) changes the semantics of DW_OP_plus and DW_OP_minus to be in line with its DWARF meaning. This patch includes the bitcode upgrade from legacy DIExpressions.
Patch by Sander de Smalen.
Reviewers: echristo, pcc, aprantl
Reviewed By: aprantl
Subscribers: fhahn, javed.absar, aprantl, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33894
llvm-svn: 305386
The DWARF specification knows 3 kinds of non-empty simple location
descriptions:
1. Register location descriptions
- describe a variable in a register
- consist of only a DW_OP_reg
2. Memory location descriptions
- describe the address of a variable
3. Implicit location descriptions
- describe the value of a variable
- end with DW_OP_stack_value & friends
The existing DwarfExpression code is pretty much ignorant of these
restrictions. This used to not matter because we only emitted very
short expressions that we happened to get right by accident. This
patch makes DwarfExpression aware of the rules defined by the DWARF
standard and now chooses the right kind of location description for
each expression being emitted.
This would have been an NFC commit (for the existing testsuite) if not
for the way that clang describes captured block variables. Based on
how the previous code in LLVM emitted locations, DW_OP_deref
operations that should have come at the end of the expression are put
at its beginning. Fixing this means changing the semantics of
DIExpression, so this patch bumps the version number of DIExpression
and implements a bitcode upgrade.
There are two major changes in this patch:
I had to fix the semantics of dbg.declare for describing function
arguments. After this patch a dbg.declare always takes the *address*
of a variable as the first argument, even if the argument is not an
alloca.
When lowering a DBG_VALUE, the decision of whether to emit a register
location description or a memory location description depends on the
MachineLocation — register machine locations may get promoted to
memory locations based on their DIExpression. (Future) optimization
passes that want to salvage implicit debug location for variables may
do so by appending a DW_OP_stack_value. For example:
DBG_VALUE, [RBP-8] --> DW_OP_fbreg -8
DBG_VALUE, RAX --> DW_OP_reg0 +0
DBG_VALUE, RAX, DIExpression(DW_OP_deref) --> DW_OP_reg0 +0
All testcases that were modified were regenerated from clang. I also
added source-based testcases for each of these to the debuginfo-tests
repository over the last week to make sure that no synchronized bugs
slip in. The debuginfo-tests compile from source and run the debugger.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32382
<rdar://problem/31205000>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31439
llvm-svn: 300522
Citing http://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32288
The DWARF generated by LLVM includes this location:
0x55 0x93 0x04 DW_OP_reg5 DW_OP_piece(4) When GCC's DWARF is simply
0x55 (DW_OP_reg5) without the DW_OP_piece. I believe it's reasonable
to assume the DWARF consumer knows which part of a register
logically holds the value (low bytes, high bytes, how many bytes,
etc) for a primitive value like an integer.
This patch gets rid of the redundant DW_OP_piece when a subregister is
at offset 0. It also adds previously missing subregister masking when
a subregister is followed by another operation.
(This reapplies r297960 with two additional testcase updates).
rdar://problem/31069390
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31010
llvm-svn: 297965
Citing http://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32288
The DWARF generated by LLVM includes this location:
0x55 0x93 0x04 DW_OP_reg5 DW_OP_piece(4) When GCC's DWARF is simply
0x55 (DW_OP_reg5) without the DW_OP_piece. I believe it's reasonable
to assume the DWARF consumer knows which part of a register
logically holds the value (low bytes, high bytes, how many bytes,
etc) for a primitive value like an integer.
This patch gets rid of the redundant DW_OP_piece when a subregister is
at offset 0. It also adds previously missing subregister masking when
a subregister is followed by another operation.
rdar://problem/31069390
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31010
llvm-svn: 297960
LLVM's use of DW_OP_bit_piece is incorrect and a based on a
misunderstanding of the wording in the DWARF specification. The offset
argument of DW_OP_bit_piece refers to the offset into the location
that is on the top of the DWARF expression stack, and not an offset
into the source variable. This has since also been clarified in the
DWARF specification.
This patch fixes all uses of DW_OP_bit_piece to emit the correct
offset and simplifies the DwarfExpression class to semi-automaticaly
emit empty DW_OP_pieces to adjust the offset of the source variable,
thus simplifying the code using DwarfExpression.
While this is an incompatible bugfix, in practice I don't expect this
to be much of a problem since LLVM's old interpretation and the
correct interpretation of DW_OP_bit_piece differ only when there are
gaps in the fragmented locations of the described variables or if
individual fragments are smaller than a byte. LLDB at least won't
interpret locations with gaps in them because is has no way to present
undefined bits in a variable, and there is a high probability that an
old-form expression will be malformed when interpreted correctly,
because the DW_OP_bit_piece offset will be outside of the location at
the top of the stack.
As a nice side-effect, this patch enables us to use a more efficient
encoding for subregisters: In order to express a sub-register at a
non-zero offset we now use a DW_OP_bit_piece instead of shifting the
value into place manually.
This patch also adds missing test coverage for code paths that weren't
exercised before.
<rdar://problem/29335809>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27550
llvm-svn: 289266
Reid Kleckner