<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 8:07 AM Robinson, Paul <<a href="mailto:paul.robinson@sony.com">paul.robinson@sony.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_5687759671268760775WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">| Any ideas why it wouldn't be more general to handle cases where the variable isn't named?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Couldn’t there be a DIE (flagged as artificial) to describe the return-value temp?</p></div></div></blockquote><div><br>There could be - though there are very few (the array bound example Adrian gave is the only one I know of - and even that seems unnecessary/GCC uses a different (& I think better/clearer/simpler) representation) cases of artificial variables being generated in Clang/LLVM - it lacks precedent so far as I can tell.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_5687759671268760775WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"> You’d need such a DIE if you wanted the debugger to be able to look at the return value from source() anyway,</p></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Not so far as I know - with GDB (& I assume LLDB) when you call a function and return from it (eg: "finish" or "step" that steps across the end of a function) the debugger prints out the return value (using the DW_AT_type of the DW_TAG_subprogram that was executing & its knowledge of the ABI to know where/how that value would be stored during the return) & you can actually then query it and do other things using the artificial variable name GDB provides<br><br>(my example was slightly bogus - you can't take the address of a temporary in C++ like that, but you can take a reference to it, so updating & fleshing out the test:<br><br><font face="monospace">__attribute__((optnone)) int source() {<br> return 3;<br>}<br>__attribute__((optnone)) void f(int) {<br>}<br>inline void sink(const int& p) {<br> f(p);<br>}<br>int main() {<br> sink(source());<br>}</font><br><br>& then playing that through GDB:<br><font face="monospace"><br>(gdb) start<br>Temporary breakpoint 1 at 0x401131: file var.cpp, line 10.<br>Starting program: /usr/local/google/home/blaikie/dev/scratch/a.out <br><br>Temporary breakpoint 1, main () at var.cpp:10<br>10 sink(source());<br>(gdb) s<br>source () at var.cpp:2<br>2 return 3;<br>(gdb) fin<br>Run till exit from #0 source () at var.cpp:2<br>main () at var.cpp:10<br>10 sink(source());<br>Value returned is $1 = 3<br>(gdb) s<br>sink (p=<optimized out>) at var.cpp:7<br>7 f(p);</font><br><br>It'd be nice if the value of 'p' could be printed there, but it seems without introducing artificial variables, the implicit_pointer doesn't provide a way to do that & that seems to me like an unnecessary limitation & complication in the DWARF and in LLVM's intermediate representation compared to having 'p's DW_AT_location describe the value being pointed to directly without the need for another variable?<br><br>- Dave<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_5687759671268760775WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"> in the context of main() and in the absence
of inlining. And given that DIE, implicit_pointer within sink() can refer to it.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> David Blaikie <<a href="mailto:dblaikie@gmail.com" target="_blank">dblaikie@gmail.com</a>> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 14, 2019 5:32 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Robinson, Paul <<a href="mailto:paul.robinson@sony.com" target="_blank">paul.robinson@sony.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Adrian Prantl <<a href="mailto:aprantl@apple.com" target="_blank">aprantl@apple.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:AlokKumar.Sharma@amd.com" target="_blank">AlokKumar.Sharma@amd.com</a>; Jonas Devlieghere <<a href="mailto:jdevlieghere@apple.com" target="_blank">jdevlieghere@apple.com</a>>; llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: DW_OP_implicit_pointer design/implementation in general<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:53 PM Robinson, Paul <<a href="mailto:paul.robinson@sony.com" target="_blank">paul.robinson@sony.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">My reading of the DWARF issue is that it was fairly specifically designed to handle the case of a function taking parameters by pointer/reference, which is then inlined, and the
caller is passing local objects rather than other pointers/references. So:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">void inline_me(foo *ptr) {<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> does something with ptr->x or *ptr;<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">}<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">void caller() {<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> foo actual_obj;<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> inline_me(&actual_obj);<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">}<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">After inlining, maintaining a pointer to actual_obj might be sub-optimal, but after a “step in” to inline_me, the user wants to look at an expression spelled *ptr even though the
actual_obj might not have a memory address (because fields are SROA’d into registers, or whatever). This is where DW_OP_implicit_pointer saves the day; *ptr and ptr->x are still evaluatable expressions, which expressions are secretly indirecting through the
DIE for actual_obj.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think it is not widely applicable outside of that kind of scenario.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Any ideas why it wouldn't be more general to handle cases where the variable isn't named? Such as:<br>
<br>
foo source();<br>
void f(foo);<br>
inline void sink(foo* p) {<br>
f(*p);<br>
}<br>
int main() {<br>
sink(&source());<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">}<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">--paulr<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> David Blaikie <<a href="mailto:dblaikie@gmail.com" target="_blank">dblaikie@gmail.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 14, 2019 4:34 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Adrian Prantl <<a href="mailto:aprantl@apple.com" target="_blank">aprantl@apple.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:AlokKumar.Sharma@amd.com" target="_blank">AlokKumar.Sharma@amd.com</a>; Robinson, Paul <<a href="mailto:paul.robinson@sony.com" target="_blank">paul.robinson@sony.com</a>>; Jonas Devlieghere <<a href="mailto:jdevlieghere@apple.com" target="_blank">jdevlieghere@apple.com</a>>;
llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: DW_OP_implicit_pointer design/implementation in general<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:27 PM Adrian Prantl <<a href="mailto:aprantl@apple.com" target="_blank">aprantl@apple.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
> On Nov 14, 2019, at 1:21 PM, David Blaikie <<a href="mailto:dblaikie@gmail.com" target="_blank">dblaikie@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Hey folks,<br>
> <br>
> Would you all mind having a bit of a design discussion around the feature both at the DWARF level and the LLVM implementation? It seems like what's currently being proposed/reviewed (based on the DWARF feature as spec'd) is a pretty big change & I'm not sure
I understand the motivation, exactly.<br>
> <br>
> The core point of my confusion: Why does describing the thing a pointer points to require describing a named variable that it points to? What if it doesn't point to a named variable?
<br>
<br>
Without having looked at the motivational text when the feature was proposed to DWARF, my assumption was that this is similar to how bounds for variable-length arrays are implemented, where a (potentially) artificial variable is created by the compiler in order
to have something to refer to.<u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I /sort/ of see that case as a bit different, because the array type needs to refer back into the function potentially (to use frame-relative, etc). I could think of other ways to do that in hindsight (like putting the array type definition inside the function
to begin with & having the count describe the location directly, for instance).<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">In retrospect I find the entire specification of DW_OP_implicit_pointer to be strangely specific/limited (why one hard-coded offset instead of an arbitrary expression?), but that
ship has sailed for DWARF 5 and I'm to blame for not voicing that concern earlier.<u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sure, but we don't have to implement it if we don't find it to be super useful/worthwhile, right? (if something else would be particularly more general/useful we could instead implement
that as an extension, though of course there's cost to that in terms of consumer support, etc)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><br>
<br>
-- adrian<br>
<br>
> <br>
> Seems like there should be a way to describe that situation - and that doing so would be a more general solution than one limited to only describing pointers that point to named variables. And would be a simpler implementation in LLVM - without having to
deconstruct variables during optimizations, etc, to track one variable's value being concretely related to another variable's value.<br>
> <br>
> - David<u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>