[LLVMdev] LTO type uniquing: ODR assertion failure

[David Blaikie]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:14 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We still have access to types via MDNodes directly and the assertion
>> >> that
>> >> assumes all accesses to DITypes are accessing the resolved DIType will
>> >> fire
>> >>
>> >> i.e assert(Ty == resolve(Ty.getRef()))
>> >>
>> >> One example is the access to DIType via DIArray in SubroutineType. If
>> >> all
>> >> elements in the type array are DITypes we can create a DITypeArray and
>> >> use
>> >> that for SubroutineType's type array instead. But we currently have
>> >> unspecified parameter in the type array and it is not a DIType.
>> >
>> >
>> > I am going to work on a patch that adds DITypeArray (each element will
>> > be
>> > DITypeRef, SubroutineType's type array will be DITypeArray) and adds
>> > DITrivialType that extends from DIType (unspecified parameter will be
>> > DITrivialType).
>> > If you  have opinions against it, please let me know,
>>
>> We haven't bothered using typed arrays in DebugInfo yet (as you say,
>> we just have DIArray) so I have two thoughts
>>
>> 1) why does this one case need fixing/changing? Is it because we have
>> things that aren't DIDescriptors inside the DIArray? (the strings that
>> refer to types). Given how loosely typed DIDescriptor is (it doesn't
>> check that it's a valid DIDescriptor) I assume this doesn't actually
>> cause a problem, though it's certainly not nice. So we could just
>> leave it as-is, pass DIArray's element to "resolve" (it'd implicitly
>> convert the DIDescriptor back to a raw MDNode*), then perhaps we'd
>> need to make DITypeRef's ctor public so it could be used here. Not
>> suggesting that's ideal, though.
>
>
> I should have provided an example to help understanding the issue :)
>
> When processing the following type node, we throw an assertion failure
> assert(Ty == resolve(Ty.getRef()))
> !{i32 786436, metadata <badref>, null, metadata !"SpuPacketType", i32 102,
> i64 32, i64 32, i32 0, i32 0, null, metadata <badref>, i32 0, null, null,
> metadata !"_ZTS13SpuPacketType"} ; [ DW_TAG_enumeration_type ]
> [SpuPacketType] [line 102, size 32, align 32, offset 0] [def] [from ]
>
> There are two type nodes with the same identifier:
> !473 = metadata !{i32 786436, metadata !474, null, metadata
> !"SpuPacketType", i32 102, i64 32, i64 32, i32 0, i32 0, null, metadata
> !475, i32 0, null, null, metadata !"_ZTS13SpuPacketType"} ; [
> DW_TAG_enumeration_type ] [SpuPacketType] [line 102, size 32, align 32,
> offset 0] [def] [from ]
> !6695 = metadata !{i32 786436, metadata !6696, null, metadata
> !"SpuPacketType", i32 102, i64 32, i64 32, i32 0, i32 0, null, metadata
> !475, i32 0, null, null, metadata !"_ZTS13SpuPacketType"} ; [
> DW_TAG_enumeration_type ] [SpuPacketType] [line 102, size 32, align 32,
> offset 0] [def] [from ]
>
> The only difference between these two is the file node
> !474 = metadata !{metadata
> !"/Users/manmanren/swb/rdar_17628609/AppleSPUFirmware-71/SPU/SPUPacket.h",
> metadata !"/Users/manmanren/swb/rdar_17628609/AppleSPUFirmware-71"}
> !6696 = metadata !{metadata
> !"/Users/manmanren/swb/rdar_17628609/AppleSPUFirmware-71/SPU/../SPU/SPUPacket.h",
> metadata !"/Users/manmanren/swb/rdar_17628609/AppleSPUFirmware-71"}
>
> We have direct access to 473 via 580's type array.
> !580 = metadata !{i32 786453, i32 0, null, metadata !"", i32 0, i64 0, i64
> 0, i64 0, i32 0, null, metadata !581, i32 0, null, null, null} ; [
> DW_TAG_subroutine_type ] [line 0, size 0, align 0, offset 0] [from ]
> !581 = metadata !{metadata !124, metadata !575, metadata !473, metadata
> !582, metadata !212, metadata !128, metadata !584}
>
> MDNode 473 will be resolved to MDNode 6695 and the assertion "assert(Ty ==
> resolve(Ty.getRef()))" will fire.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> To fix the problem, we need to remove the direct access to MDNode 473 by
> replacing MDNode 581 from
> metadata !{metadata !124, metadata !575, metadata !473, metadata !582,
> metadata !212, metadata !128, metadata !584}
> to
> metadata !{metadata !124, metadata !575, metadata !"_ZTS13SpuPacketType",
> metadata !582, metadata !212, metadata !128, metadata !584}
>
> And treat the field {metadata !"_ZTS13SpuPacketType"} as DITypeRef.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> If we have DIDescriptorRef and all elements currently inside DIArray are
> DIDescirptors, we can make DIArray an array of DIDescriptorRef.
> I don't think it is a good idea to add DIDescriptorRef (it makes our types
> loose) and am not sure about the 2nd condition.
>
> So I proposed to add DITypeArray (or DITypedArray<DITypeRef> as David
> suggested, where all elements are DITypeRef),
> DICompositeType::getTypeArray() will return DITypeArray and
> DITypeArray::getElement(unsigned) will return DITypeRef.
>
> This is actually more complicated than I thought, not all DICompositeType's
> getTypeArray() can return an array of DITypeRefs. For example,
> getTypeArray() of ArrayType and VectorType can not return an array of
> DITypeRefs.

Why can't they?

> We can fix that by extending DICompositeType to DISubroutineType and only
> DISubroutineType::getTypeArray() will return DITypeArray.
> Even for SubroutineType, elements of the type array can be unspecified
> parameters which can't be DITypeRefs.

Again - I'm just missing why this is the case. DITypeRefs can be
direct references to types (such as file-internal C++ user defined
types) so there's always a safe fallback, isn't there?

> That is why I was thinking about
> making unspecified parameters trivial DITypes.
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Manman
>
>>
>>
>> 2) If we're going to fix DIArray apparent type safety (it's not safe -
>> just convenient), perhaps we could just template it? (to avoid churn,
>> we could leave DIArray as a typedef of DITypedArray<DIDescriptor> for
>> example, and then have DITypedArray<DITypeRef> which is your
>> DITypeArray (again, provided via typedef)). It's so small though, that
>> I'm not too fussed if we write it out again as you've proposed.
>>
>> - David
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Manman
>> >
>> >>
>> >> What are your thoughts? Suggestions are welcome.
>> >>
>> >> Is it a good idea to canonicalize file names (i.e dA/B.h should be
>> >> equivalent to dA/../dA/B.h)? This will reduce the chance of having two
>> >> DITypes that should be equivalent with equivalent file names.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Manman
>> >
>> >
>
>