forked from OSchip/llvm-project
85460c4ea2
Summary: This is a fix for PR45009. When working on D67492 I made DwarfExpression emit a single DW_OP_entry_value operation covering the whole composite location description that is produced if a register does not have a valid DWARF number, and is instead composed of multiple register pieces. Looking closer at the standard, this appears to not be valid DWARF. A DW_OP_entry_value operation's block can only be a DWARF expression or a register location description, so it appears to not be valid for it to hold a composite location description like that. See DWARFv5 sec. 2.5.1.7: "The DW_OP_entry_value operation pushes the value that the described location held upon entering the current subprogram. It has two operands: an unsigned LEB128 length, followed by a block containing a DWARF expression or a register location description (see Section 2.6.1.1.3 on page 39)." Here is a dwarf-discuss mail thread regarding this: http://lists.dwarfstd.org/pipermail/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org/2020-March/004610.html There was not a strong consensus reached there, but people seem to lean towards that operations specified under 2.6 (e.g. DW_OP_piece) may not be part of a DWARF expression, and thus the DW_OP_entry_value operation can't contain those. Perhaps we instead want to emit a entry value operation per each DW_OP_reg* operation, e.g.: - DW_OP_entry_value(DW_OP_regx sub_reg0), DW_OP_stack_value, DW_OP_piece 8, - DW_OP_entry_value(DW_OP_regx sub_reg1), DW_OP_stack_value, DW_OP_piece 8, [...] The question then becomes how the call site should look; should a composite location description be emitted there, and we then leave it up to the debugger to match those two composite location descriptions? Another alternative could be to emit a call site parameter entry for each sub-register, but firstly I'm unsure if that is even valid DWARF, and secondly it seems like that would complicate the collection of call site values quite a bit. As far as I can tell GCC does not emit any entry values / call sites in these cases, so we do not have something to compare with, but the former seems like the more reasonable approach. Currently when trying to emit a call site entry for a parameter composed of multiple DWARF registers a (DwarfRegs.size() == 1) assert is triggered in addMachineRegExpression(). Until the call site representation is figured out, and until there is use for these entry values in practice, this commit simply stops the invalid DWARF from being emitted. Reviewers: djtodoro, vsk, aprantl Reviewed By: djtodoro, vsk Subscribers: jyknight, hiraditya, fedor.sergeev, jrtc27, llvm-commits Tags: #debug-info, #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75270 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| entry-value-complex-reg-expr.ll | ||
| gnu-window-save.ll | ||
| lit.local.cfg | ||
| processes-relocations.ll | ||
| prologue_end.ll | ||
| subreg.ll | ||