[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D18982: Handle bit fields on big-endian systems correctly

Ulrich Weigand via lldb-commits lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Mon Apr 11 11:44:07 PDT 2016

uweigand created this revision.
uweigand added reviewers: granata.enrico, clayborg.
uweigand added a subscriber: lldb-commits.

Currently, the DataExtractor::GetMaxU64Bitfield and GetMaxS64Bitfield
routines assume the incoming "bitfield_bit_offset" parameter uses
little-endian bit numbering, i.e. a bitfield_bit_offset 0 refers to
a bitfield whose least-significant bit coincides with the least-
significant bit of the surrounding integer.

On many big-endian systems, however, the big-endian bit numbering
is used for bit fields.  Here, a bitfield_bit_offset 0 refers to
a bitfield whose most-significant bit conincides with the most-
significant bit of the surrounding integer.

Now, in principle LLDB could arbitrarily choose which semantics of
bitfield_bit_offset to use.  However, there are two problems with
the current approach:

- When parsing DWARF, LLDB decodes bit offsets in little-endian
  bit numbering on LE systems, but in big-endian bit numbering
  on BE systems.  Passing those offsets later on into the
  DataExtractor routines gives incorrect results on BE.

- In the interim, LLDB's type layer combines byte and bit offsets
  into a single number.  I.e. instead of recording bitfields by
  specifying the byte offset and byte size of the surrounding
  integer *plus* the bit offset of the bit field within that field,
  it simply records a single bit offset number.

  Now, note that converting from byte offset + bit offset to a
  single offset value and back is well-defined if we either use
  little-endian byte order *and* little-endian bit numbering,
  or use big-endian byte order *and* big-endian bit numbering.
  Any other combination will yield incorrect results.

Therefore, the simplest approach would seem to be to always use
the bit numbering that matches the system byte order.  This makes
storing a single bit offset valid, and makes the existing DWARF
code correct.  The only place to fix is to teach DataExtractor
to use big-endian bit numbering on big endian systems.

However, there is only additional caveat: we also get bit offsets
from LLDB synthetic bitfields.  While the exact semantics of those
doesn't seem to be well-defined, from test cases it appears that
the intent was for the user-provided synthetic bitfield offset to
always use little-endian bit numbering.  Therefore, on a big-endian
system we now have to convert those to big-endian bit numbering
to remain consistent.



Index: source/Core/ValueObject.cpp
--- source/Core/ValueObject.cpp
+++ source/Core/ValueObject.cpp
@@ -2146,15 +2146,19 @@
         synthetic_child_sp = GetSyntheticChild (index_const_str);
         if (!synthetic_child_sp)
+            uint32_t bit_field_size = to - from + 1;
+            uint32_t bit_field_offset = from;
+            if (GetDataExtractor().GetByteOrder() == eByteOrderBig)
+                bit_field_offset = GetByteSize() * 8 - bit_field_size - bit_field_offset;
             // We haven't made a synthetic array member for INDEX yet, so
             // lets make one and cache it for any future reference.
             ValueObjectChild *synthetic_child = new ValueObjectChild (*this,
-                                                                      to-from+1,
-                                                                      from,
+                                                                      bit_field_size,
+                                                                      bit_field_offset,
Index: source/Core/DataExtractor.cpp
--- source/Core/DataExtractor.cpp
+++ source/Core/DataExtractor.cpp
@@ -733,8 +733,11 @@
     uint64_t uval64 = GetMaxU64 (offset_ptr, size);
     if (bitfield_bit_size > 0)
-        if (bitfield_bit_offset > 0)
-            uval64 >>= bitfield_bit_offset;
+        int32_t lsbcount = bitfield_bit_offset;
+        if (m_byte_order == eByteOrderBig)
+            lsbcount = size * 8 - bitfield_bit_offset - bitfield_bit_size;
+        if (lsbcount > 0)
+            uval64 >>= lsbcount;
         uint64_t bitfield_mask = ((1ul << bitfield_bit_size) - 1);
         if (!bitfield_mask && bitfield_bit_offset == 0 && bitfield_bit_size == 64)
             return uval64;
@@ -749,8 +752,11 @@
     int64_t sval64 = GetMaxS64 (offset_ptr, size);
     if (bitfield_bit_size > 0)
-        if (bitfield_bit_offset > 0)
-            sval64 >>= bitfield_bit_offset;
+        int32_t lsbcount = bitfield_bit_offset;
+        if (m_byte_order == eByteOrderBig)
+            lsbcount = size * 8 - bitfield_bit_offset - bitfield_bit_size;
+        if (lsbcount > 0)
+            sval64 >>= lsbcount;
         uint64_t bitfield_mask = (((uint64_t)1) << bitfield_bit_size) - 1;
         sval64 &= bitfield_mask;
         // sign extend if needed

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: D18982.53298.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3055 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20160411/3f52201b/attachment.bin>

More information about the lldb-commits mailing list