[lldb-dev] RFC: Moving debug info parsing out of process
Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Feb 26 16:52:23 PST 2019
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:49 PM Frédéric Riss <friss at apple.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2019, at 4:03 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> I would probably build the server by using mostly code from LLVM. Since
> it would contain all of the low level debug info parsing libraries, i would
> expect that all knowledge of debug info (at least, in the form that
> compilers emit it in) could eventually be removed from LLDB entirely.
> That’s quite an ambitious goal.
> I haven’t looked at the SymbolFile API, what do you expect the exchange
> currency between the server and LLDB to be? Serialized compiler ASTs? If
> that’s the case, it seems like you need a strong rev-lock between the
> server and the client. Which in turn add quite some complexity to the
> rollout of new versions of the debugger.
Definitely not serialized ASTs, because you could be debugging some
language other than C++. Probably something more like JSON, where you
parse the debug info and send back some JSON representation of the type /
function / variable the user requested, which can almost be a direct
mapping to LLDB's internal symbol hierarchy (e.g. the Function, Type, etc
classes). You'd still need to build the AST on the client
> So, for example, all of the efforts to merge LLDB and LLVM's DWARF parsing
> libraries could happen by first implementing inside of LLVM whatever
> functionality is missing, and then using that from within the server. And
> yes, I would expect lldb to spin up a server, just as it does with
> lldb-server today if you try to debug something. It finds the lldb-server
> binary and runs it.
> When I say "switching the default", what I mean is that if someday this
> hypothetical server supports everything that the current in-process parsing
> codepath supports, we could just delete that entire codepath and switch
> everything to the out of process server, even if that server were running
> on the same physical machine as the debugger client (which would be
> functionally equivalent to what we have today).
> (I obviously knew what you meant by "switching the default”, I was trying
> to ask about how… to which the answer is by spinning up a local server)
> Do you envision LLDB being able to talk to more than one server at the
> same time? It seems like this could be useful to debug a local build while
> still having access to debug symbols for your dependencies that have their
> symbols in a central repository.
I hadn't really thought of this, but it certainly seems possible. Since
the API is stateless, it could send requests to any server it wanted, with
some mechanism of selecting between them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lldb-dev