r214133 - [Debug Info] add DISubroutineType and its creation takes DITypeArray.

Manman Ren manman.ren at gmail.com
Tue Jul 29 10:20:51 PDT 2014 

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 8:24 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Author: mren
> > Date: Mon Jul 28 17:24:34 2014
> > New Revision: 214133
> >
> > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=214133&view=rev
> > Log:
> > [Debug Info] add DISubroutineType and its creation takes DITypeArray.
> >
> > This is the last patch to unique the type array of a subroutine type.
> > This is the paired commit with llvm r214132.
> >
> > Modified:
> >     cfe/trunk/lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp
> >     cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-template-member.cpp
> >
> > Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp
> > URL:
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp?rev=214133&r1=214132&r2=214133&view=diff
> >
> ==============================================================================
> > --- cfe/trunk/lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp (original)
> > +++ cfe/trunk/lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp Mon Jul 28 17:24:34 2014
> > @@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ llvm::DIType CGDebugInfo::CreateType(con
> >        EltTys.push_back(DBuilder.createUnspecifiedParameter());
> >    }
> >
> > -  llvm::DIArray EltTypeArray = DBuilder.getOrCreateArray(EltTys);
> > +  llvm::DITypeArray EltTypeArray =
> DBuilder.getOrCreateTypeArray(EltTys);
> >    return DBuilder.createSubroutineType(Unit, EltTypeArray);
> >  }
> >
> > @@ -986,8 +986,8 @@ CGDebugInfo::getOrCreateMethodType(const
> >  llvm::DICompositeType CGDebugInfo::getOrCreateInstanceMethodType(
> >      QualType ThisPtr, const FunctionProtoType *Func, llvm::DIFile Unit)
> {
> >    // Add "this" pointer.
> > -  llvm::DIArray Args = llvm::DICompositeType(
> > -      getOrCreateType(QualType(Func, 0), Unit)).getElements();
> > +  llvm::DITypeArray Args = llvm::DISubroutineType(
> > +      getOrCreateType(QualType(Func, 0), Unit)).getTypeArray();
> >    assert (Args.getNumElements() && "Invalid number of arguments!");
> >
> >    SmallVector<llvm::Value *, 16> Elts;
> > @@ -1024,7 +1024,7 @@ llvm::DICompositeType CGDebugInfo::getOr
> >    for (unsigned i = 1, e = Args.getNumElements(); i != e; ++i)
> >      Elts.push_back(Args.getElement(i));
> >
> > -  llvm::DIArray EltTypeArray = DBuilder.getOrCreateArray(Elts);
> > +  llvm::DITypeArray EltTypeArray = DBuilder.getOrCreateTypeArray(Elts);
> >
> >    unsigned Flags = 0;
> >    if (Func->getExtProtoInfo().RefQualifier == RQ_LValue)
> > @@ -1374,7 +1374,7 @@ llvm::DIType CGDebugInfo::getOrCreateVTa
> >
> >    /* Function type */
> >    llvm::Value *STy = getOrCreateType(Context.IntTy, Unit);
> > -  llvm::DIArray SElements = DBuilder.getOrCreateArray(STy);
> > +  llvm::DITypeArray SElements = DBuilder.getOrCreateTypeArray(STy);
> >    llvm::DIType SubTy = DBuilder.createSubroutineType(Unit, SElements);
> >    unsigned Size = Context.getTypeSize(Context.VoidPtrTy);
> >    llvm::DIType vtbl_ptr_type = DBuilder.createPointerType(SubTy, Size,
> 0,
> > @@ -2392,7 +2392,8 @@ llvm::DICompositeType CGDebugInfo::getOr
> >      // llvm::DISubprogram::Verify() would return false, and
> >      // subprogram DIE will miss DW_AT_decl_file and
> >      // DW_AT_decl_line fields.
> > -    return DBuilder.createSubroutineType(F,
> DBuilder.getOrCreateArray(None));
> > +    return DBuilder.createSubroutineType(F,
> > +
> DBuilder.getOrCreateTypeArray(None));
> >
> >    if (const CXXMethodDecl *Method = dyn_cast<CXXMethodDecl>(D))
> >      return getOrCreateMethodType(Method, F);
> > @@ -2420,7 +2421,7 @@ llvm::DICompositeType CGDebugInfo::getOr
> >      for (const auto *PI : OMethod->params())
> >        Elts.push_back(getOrCreateType(PI->getType(), F));
> >
> > -    llvm::DIArray EltTypeArray = DBuilder.getOrCreateArray(Elts);
> > +    llvm::DITypeArray EltTypeArray =
> DBuilder.getOrCreateTypeArray(Elts);
> >      return DBuilder.createSubroutineType(F, EltTypeArray);
> >    }
> >
> > @@ -2434,7 +2435,7 @@ llvm::DICompositeType CGDebugInfo::getOr
> >          for (unsigned i = 0, e = FPT->getNumParams(); i != e; ++i)
> >            EltTys.push_back(getOrCreateType(FPT->getParamType(i), F));
> >        EltTys.push_back(DBuilder.createUnspecifiedParameter());
> > -      llvm::DIArray EltTypeArray = DBuilder.getOrCreateArray(EltTys);
> > +      llvm::DITypeArray EltTypeArray =
> DBuilder.getOrCreateTypeArray(EltTys);
> >        return DBuilder.createSubroutineType(F, EltTypeArray);
> >      }
> >
> >
> > Modified: cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-template-member.cpp
> > URL:
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-template-member.cpp?rev=214133&r1=214132&r2=214133&view=diff
> >
> ==============================================================================
> > --- cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-template-member.cpp (original)
> > +++ cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-template-member.cpp Mon Jul 28
> 17:24:34 2014
> > @@ -20,8 +20,8 @@ inline int add3(int x) {
> >  // CHECK: [[FOO_MEM]] = metadata !{metadata [[FOO_FUNC:![0-9]*]]}
> >  // CHECK: [[FOO_FUNC]] = {{.*}}, metadata
> !"_ZN3foo4funcEN5outerIS_E5innerE", i32 {{[0-9]*}}, metadata
> [[FOO_FUNC_TYPE:![0-9]*]], {{.*}} ; [ DW_TAG_subprogram ] {{.*}} [func]
> >  // CHECK: [[FOO_FUNC_TYPE]] = {{.*}}, metadata
> [[FOO_FUNC_PARAMS:![0-9]*]], i32 0, null, null, null} ; [
> DW_TAG_subroutine_type ]
> > -// CHECK: [[FOO_FUNC_PARAMS]] = metadata !{null, metadata !{{[0-9]*}},
> metadata [[OUTER_FOO_INNER:![0-9]*]]}
> > -// CHECK: [[OUTER_FOO_INNER]] = {{.*}}, null, metadata
> !"[[OUTER_FOO_INNER_ID:.*]]"} ; [ DW_TAG_structure_type ] [inner]
>
> FWIW I usually match the metadata value including the ! for
> cross-references, like this:
>
>   metadata [[OUTER_FOO_INNER_ID:!".*"]]
>
> that way the back reference doesn't need to repeat the !" stuff:
>
>   metadata [[OUTER_FOO_INNER_ID]]
>
> And the initial match still has the string bits, which ensure that it
> is a string value, not a direct metadata reference.
>
> Though, given that there's a CHECK line just two lines up that uses
> the actual mangled name (at least I assume that's the same name:
> "_ZN3foo4funcEN5outerIS_E5innerE") perhaps it'd make more sense just
> to use the name directly, rather than a capturing reference?
>

 _ZN3foo4funcEN5outerIS_E5innerE is the mangled name for the subprogram,
and here we are checking the mangled name for one of the parameter type,
so they are different.

Thanks for the post-commit review,
Manman


> In the frontend you have to be careful not to match the name directly
> due to differences in mangling between itanium and Windows, etc - but
> that's not the case with this backend test where the mangled name is
> already hardcoded in the input.
>
> > +// CHECK: [[FOO_FUNC_PARAMS]] = metadata !{null, metadata !{{[0-9]*}},
> metadata !"[[OUTER_FOO_INNER_ID:.*]]"}
> > +// CHECK: !{{[0-9]*}} = {{.*}}, null, metadata
> !"[[OUTER_FOO_INNER_ID]]"} ; [ DW_TAG_structure_type ] [inner]
> >
> >  // CHECK: metadata [[VIRT_MEM:![0-9]*]], i32 0, metadata
> !"_ZTS4virtI4elemE", metadata [[VIRT_TEMP_PARAM:![0-9]*]], metadata
> !"_ZTS4virtI4elemE"} ; [ DW_TAG_structure_type ] [virt<elem>] {{.*}} [def]
> >  // CHECK: [[VIRT_TEMP_PARAM]] = metadata !{metadata [[VIRT_T:![0-9]*]]}
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-commits mailing list
> > cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140729/ec9f93e5/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list