[all-commits] [llvm/llvm-project] e731a2: [DebugInfo][Split DWARF][LTO]: Ensure only a singl...
David Blaikie via All-commits
all-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed May 31 17:21:19 PDT 2023
Author: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
Date: 2023-06-01 (Thu, 01 Jun 2023)
[DebugInfo][Split DWARF][LTO]: Ensure only a single CU is emitted
Split DWARF doesn't handle LTO of any form (roughly there's an
assumption that each dwo file will have one CU - it's not explicitly
documented, nor explicitly handled, so the ecosystem isn't really well
This had previously been handled by implementing (& disabling by
default) the `-split-dwarf-cross-cu-references` flag, which would
disable use of ref_addr across two dwo CUs.
This worked for a while, at least in LTO (it didn't address Split
DWARF+Full LTO, but that's an unlikely combination, as the benefits of
Split DWARF are more limited in a full LTO build) - because the only
source of cross-CU references was inlined functions, so by making those
non-cross-CU (by moving the referenced inlined function DWARF
description into the referencing CU) the result was one CU per dwo.
But recently the Function Specialization pass was added to the ThinLTO
pipeline, which caused imported functions that may not be inlined to be
emitted by a backend compile. This meant foreign CU entities (not just
abstract origins/cross-CU referenced entities)/standalone foreign CUs
could be emitted by a backend compile.
The end result was, due to a bug* in binutils dwp (I think basically
it saw two CUs in a single dwo and reprocessed the offsets in the shared
debug_str_offsets.dwo section) this situation lead to corrupted strings.
So to make this more robust, I've generalized the definition of the
`-split-dwarf-cross-cu-references` flag (perhaps it should be renamed at
this point, but it's /really/ niche, doubt anyone's using it - more or
less there for experimentation when we get around to figuring out
spec'ing LTO+Split DWARF) to mean "single CU in a dwo file" and added
more general handling for this.
There's certainly some weird corner cases that could come up in terms of
"how do we choose which CU to put everything in" - for now it's "first
come, first served" which is probably going to be OK for ThinLTO - the
base module will have the first functions and first CU, imported
fragments will come after that. For LTO the choice will be fairly
arbitrary - but, again, essentially whichever module comes first.
* Arguably a bug in binutils dwp, but since the feature isn't well
specified, I'd rather avoid dabbling in this uncertain area and ensure
LLVM doesn't produce especially novel DWARF (dwos with multiple CUs)
regardless of whether binutils dwp would/should be fixed. I'm not
confident debuggers could read such a dwo file well, etc.
More information about the All-commits