-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[llvm/DWARF] Recursively resolve DW_AT_signature references #97423
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems a bit questionable that
getAsRelativeReference
returns a valid value forDW_FORM_ref_sig8
- it's not a CU-relative reference form... (eg: if one had calledgetAttributeValueAsReferencedDie
on a ref_sig8 before this patch, it would have walked off to some garbage offset, right? Interpreting the sig8 as an offset)So might be worth changing it to not do that and having an explicit/separate case here?
(aside: this case is probably untested? How'd you come across changing this function? Clang/LLVM doesn't produce direct references via ref_sig8, only via the skeleton type DIEs... ah, I see, the
findRecursively
change would cause us to callgetAttributeValueAsReferencedDie(DW_AT_signature)
? OK.Incidentally this has probably added support for some DWARF that GCC produces - where it references the type unit directly from DW_AT_type, maybe? Currently llvm-dwarfdump doesn't resolve such references ( https://godbolt.org/z/E5boxcj1r - note the
DW_TAG_variable
'sDW_AT_type (0xc949e2ea8b91cfb0)
only has the signature, and I guess with this patch maybe we now getDW_AT_type (0xc949e2ea8b91cfb0 "t1")
?)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. It did seem somewhat suboptimal, but I wasn't particularly keen on taking it on.
Now I am, and here's my attempt to do something about this: #98905
Interesting. I'll look into this tomorrow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, it really does fix it. I added a test (modifying an existing one) for that. PTAL.