OK, updated patch attached. Responses to the questions inline below.
Thanks,
Steve
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote:
> So a few questions:
>
> 1 - Does anyone use the "link_map_addr" parameter that is being sent to
> many of the functions that were moved into DynamicLoader? I didn't see any.
> Please remove this argument if possible.
>
It turns out this *is* used in
DynamicLoaderPOSIXDYLD::UpdateLoadedSections(), so I left it in there and
in the routine that calls it (LoadModuleAtAddress), but it was possible to
remove it from UpdateLoadedSectionsCommon so I did that.
> 2 - ReadInt() isn't correct for all systems:
>
> static int ReadInt(Process *process, addr_t addr)
> {
> Error error;
> int value = (int)process->ReadUnsignedIntegerFromMemory(addr,
> sizeof(uint32_t), 0, error);
>
> See the "sizeof(uint32_t)"? We will want to get the size of an "int" for
> the process that is being run if this function really does need to get a
> "int" from the debugger. So this sizeof() needs to be changed to get the
> actual size of a type "int" via:
>
> ClangASTContext *ast = m_process->GetTarget().GetScratchClangASTContext();
> ClangASTType int_type = ast->GetBasicType (eBasicTypeInt);
> uint64_t int_size = int_type.GetByteSize();
>
> Or this function might be more useful if we pass in the size of the
> integer we need?
>
Investigating this revealed what appears to be a bug on big-endian 64-bit
Linux platforms, but I'm decoupling that bug fix from this patch, as this
patch is supposed to be functionally a no-op. I've taken your suggestion
that the size of the int should be passed in, but for now the caller passes
in "4" as that's equivalent to the code that was there before.
> 3 - The DynamicLoader class has a m_process member variable so the
> "Process *process" argument doesn't need to be passed into the following
> functions:
> int DynamicLoader::ReadInt(Process *process, addr_t addr);
> addr_t DynamicLoader::ReadPointer(Process *process, addr_t addr);
>
I made these methods non-static and removed the process parameter as you
suggested.
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Steve Pucci <spucci at google.com> wrote:
>
> > OK, that seemed to work, at least on my simple shared-library testcase
> on Ubuntu, which invokes the new code in ObjectFileELF::SetLoadAddress().
> >
> > Updated full patch attached.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Steve Pucci <spucci at google.com> wrote:
> > OK, great, thanks Greg, I'll give it a go.
> >
> > - Steve
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com>
> wrote:
> > The first thing to do is just look at the section that has address of
> zero and see if it has any bits that the other don't or vice versa.
> >
> > I think the bit you are looking for is SHF_ALLOC.
> >
> > The "sh_flags" from the ELF section are indeed placed in the
> lldb_private::Section flags, so you should be able to do:
> >
> > for (section : sections)
> > {
> > if (section->Test(SHF_ALLOC))
> > {
> > // Load this section
> > }
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:23 PM, Steve Pucci <spucci at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > > OK, I understand, though I may need some help from someone with
> interpreting Section headers for Elf. I'll let this group know if I have
> questions.
> > >
> > > Thanks again,
> > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:02 PM, Steve Pucci <spucci at google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks, Greg.
> > > >
> > > > I think it all makes sense, except for one bit:
> > > >
> > > > In ObjectFileELF::SetLoadAddress(), are you proposing I simply call
> Module::SetLoadAddress as it exists today? That method walks through all
> sections and checks only section_sp->IsThreadSpecific() to decide whether
> to load the section, and there's no place to insert an ELF-specific check
> of the section to see if it's loadable. Is that what you meant, or are you
> suggesting something else?
> > >
> > > Something else. When the ObjectFileELF parser parses the section
> headers, it places the flags (or it should if it isn't) into the flags
> field of the lldb_private::Section. So it should be able to use the flags
> from its sections to correctly in each lldb_private::Section, and correctly
> interpret them to know which sections need to be loaded and which don't. So
> let the ELF plugin that created the sections correctly interpret the flags
> it put into the sections.
> > >
> > > We then will need to change the Module::SetLoadAddress() to call this
> new ObjectFile function.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Instead of that I could have ObjectFileELF::SetLoadAddress iterate
> through the sections as UpdateLoadedSectionsCommon does below, OR I could
> somehow provide a callback to be called from Module::SetLoadAddress
> (perhaps by passing in the ObjectFile*).
> > >
> > > It should all be done in the ObjectFileELF::SetLoadAddress function.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Jan 27, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Looks ok except for:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is ELF specific with the file address of zero, and it
> probably should more be done via flags and asking the section if it is
> loadable:
> > > > >
> > > > > +void
> > > > > +DynamicLoader::UpdateLoadedSectionsCommon(ModuleSP module, addr_t
> link_map_addr, addr_t base_addr)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + Target &target = m_process->GetTarget();
> > > > > + const SectionList *sections =
> GetSectionListFromModule(module);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + assert(sections && "SectionList missing from loaded module.");
> > > > > +
> > > > > + const size_t num_sections = sections->GetSize();
> > > > > +
> > > > > + for (unsigned i = 0; i < num_sections; ++i)
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + SectionSP section_sp (sections->GetSectionAtIndex(i));
> > > > > + lldb::addr_t new_load_addr = section_sp->GetFileAddress()
> + base_addr;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + // If the file address of the section is zero then this
> is not an
> > > > > + // allocatable/loadable section (property of ELF
> sh_addr). Skip it.
> > > > > + if (new_load_addr == base_addr)
> > > > > + continue;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + target.SetSectionLoadAddress(section_sp, new_load_addr);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +}
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There is also a module function that does something similar to
> this, without the looking for the zero address:
> > > > >
> > > > > bool
> > > > > Module::SetLoadAddress (Target &target, lldb::addr_t offset, bool
> &changed);
> > > > >
> > > > > So I would propose the following:
> > > > >
> > > > > Update DynamicLoader::UpdateLoadedSectionsCommon() to call into a
> new function that is a virtual function in ObjectFile:
> > > > >
> > > > > virtual bool SetLoadAddress (addr_t base_addr)
> > > > > {
> > > > > return false;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > Then each object file (ObjectFileELF in your case) can choose to
> do the loading correctly given a single "base_addr":
> > > > >
> > > > > bool
> > > > > ObjectFileELF::SetLoadAddress (addr_t base_addr)
> > > > > {
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > Then in ObjectFileELF::SetLoadAddress() you can use the section
> flags that were saved in the lldb_private::Section to properly determine
> which sections are loadable and which aren't. This function is for a rigid
> slide of all loadable sections.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does that make sense?
> > > >
> > > > I forgot the SetLoadAddress needs a target, and each object file
> already knows its module, so that doesn't need to be passed, it can be
> retrieved via the getter function:
> > > >
> > > > virtual bool SetLoadAddress (Target &target, addr_t base_addr)
> > > > {
> > > > return false;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Then each object file (ObjectFileELF in your case) can choose to do
> the loading correctly given a single "base_addr":
> > > >
> > > > bool
> > > > ObjectFileELF::SetLoadAddress (Target &target, addr_t base_addr)
> > > > {
> > > > ModuleSP module_sp = GetModule();
> > > > if (module_sp)
> > > > {
> > > > ....
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Greg
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Steve Pucci <spucci at google.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'd like to have access to a number of methods in
> DynamicLoaderPOSIXDYLD from the new class I'm working on,
> DynamicLoaderGDBServer. These methods have no dependency on
> DynamicLoaderPOSIXDYLD, with two exceptions noted below, so I'm proposing
> to move them into the base class DynamicLoader.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The two exceptions are the methods UpdateLoadedSections and
> UnloadSections; in each case there is one line of code that is special to
> the derived class, and the rest of the code in the method is generic to the
> base class. In each case I created a XXXCommon() method on the base class
> with the common code, and created a virtual method XXX() on the base class,
> which in DynamicLoaderPOSIXDYLD will call the common code and then execute
> its one line of specialized code.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This patch is intended to have no functional difference
> whatsoever. All 276 tests that are enabled for Ubuntu pass successfully.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Steve
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> <patch-FactorDynamicLibrary.txt>_______________________________________________
> > > > >> lldb-dev mailing list
> > > > >> lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > > > >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > lldb-dev mailing list
> > > > > lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > > > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > <patch-FactorDynamicLibrary-2.txt>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20140205/f0d544bc/attachment.html>