This is a revert-of-revert (i.e. this reverts commit 802bec89, which
itself reverted fa4701e1 and 79daafc9) with a fix folded in. The problem
was that call site tags weren't emitted properly when LTO was enabled
along with split-dwarf. This required a minor fix. I've added a reduced
test case in test/DebugInfo/X86/fission-call-site.ll.
Original commit message:
This allows a call site tag in CU A to reference a callee DIE in CU B
without resorting to creating an incomplete duplicate DIE for the callee
inside of CU A.
We already allow cross-CU references of subprogram declarations, so it
doesn't seem like definitions ought to be special.
This improves entry value evaluation and tail call frame synthesis in
the LTO setting. During LTO, it's common for cross-module inlining to
produce a call in some CU A where the callee resides in a different CU,
and there is no declaration subprogram for the callee anywhere. In this
case llvm would (unnecessarily, I think) emit an empty DW_TAG_subprogram
in order to fill in the call site tag. That empty 'definition' defeats
entry value evaluation etc., because the debugger can't figure out what
it means.
As a follow-up, maybe we could add a DWARF verifier check that a
DW_TAG_subprogram at least has a DW_AT_name attribute.
Update #1:
Reland with a fix to create a declaration DIE when the declaration is
missing from the CU's retainedTypes list. The declaration is left out
of the retainedTypes list in two cases:
1) Re-compiling pre-r266445 bitcode (in which declarations weren't added
to the retainedTypes list), and
2) Doing LTO function importing (which doesn't update the retainedTypes
list).
It's possible to handle (1) and (2) by modifying the retainedTypes list
(in AutoUpgrade, or in the LTO importing logic resp.), but I don't see
an advantage to doing it this way, as it would cause more DWARF to be
emitted compared to creating the declaration DIEs lazily.
Update #2:
Fold in a fix for call site tag emission in the split-dwarf + LTO case.
Tested with a stage2 ThinLTO+RelWithDebInfo build of clang, and with a
ReleaseLTO-g build of the test suite.
rdar://46577651, rdar://57855316, rdar://57840415, rdar://58888440
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70350
... as well as:
Revert "[DWARF] Defer creating declaration DIEs until we prepare call site info"
This reverts commit fa4701e197.
This reverts commit 79daafc903.
There have been reports of this assert getting hit:
CalleeDIE && "Could not find DIE for call site entry origin
It isn't necessary to create DIEs for all of the declaration subprograms
in a CU's retainedTypes list. We can defer creating these subprograms
until we need to prepare a call site tag that refers to one.
This cleanup was mentioned in passing in D70350.
This allows a call site tag in CU A to reference a callee DIE in CU B
without resorting to creating an incomplete duplicate DIE for the callee
inside of CU A.
We already allow cross-CU references of subprogram declarations, so it
doesn't seem like definitions ought to be special.
This improves entry value evaluation and tail call frame synthesis in
the LTO setting. During LTO, it's common for cross-module inlining to
produce a call in some CU A where the callee resides in a different CU,
and there is no declaration subprogram for the callee anywhere. In this
case llvm would (unnecessarily, I think) emit an empty DW_TAG_subprogram
in order to fill in the call site tag. That empty 'definition' defeats
entry value evaluation etc., because the debugger can't figure out what
it means.
As a follow-up, maybe we could add a DWARF verifier check that a
DW_TAG_subprogram at least has a DW_AT_name attribute.
Update:
Reland with a fix to create a declaration DIE when the declaration is
missing from the CU's retainedTypes list. The declaration is left out
of the retainedTypes list in two cases:
1) Re-compiling pre-r266445 bitcode (in which declarations weren't added
to the retainedTypes list), and
2) Doing LTO function importing (which doesn't update the retainedTypes
list).
It's possible to handle (1) and (2) by modifying the retainedTypes list
(in AutoUpgrade, or in the LTO importing logic resp.), but I don't see
an advantage to doing it this way, as it would cause more DWARF to be
emitted compared to creating the declaration DIEs lazily.
Tested with a stage2 ThinLTO+RelWithDebInfo build of clang, and with a
ReleaseLTO-g build of the test suite.
rdar://46577651, rdar://57855316, rdar://57840415
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70350
This reverts commit 30038da15b. It causes
the stage2 thinLTO bot to fail with:
Assertion failed: (CU.getDIE(CalleeSP) && "Expected declaration subprogram DIE for callee")
rdar://57840415
This allows a call site tag in CU A to reference a callee DIE in CU B
without resorting to creating an incomplete duplicate DIE for the callee
inside of CU A.
We already allow cross-CU references of subprogram declarations, so it
doesn't seem like definitions ought to be special.
This improves entry value evaluation and tail call frame synthesis in
the LTO setting. During LTO, it's common for cross-module inlining to
produce a call in some CU A where the callee resides in a different CU,
and there is no declaration subprogram for the callee anywhere. In this
case llvm would (unnecessarily, I think) emit an empty DW_TAG_subprogram
in order to fill in the call site tag. That empty 'definition' defeats
entry value evaluation etc., because the debugger can't figure out what
it means.
As a follow-up, maybe we could add a DWARF verifier check that a
DW_TAG_subprogram at least has a DW_AT_name attribute.
rdar://46577651
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70350
Vedant Kumar