[lldb-dev] [RFC][PATCH] Keep un-canonicalized template types in the debug information
Eric Christopher
echristo at gmail.com
Thu Sep 18 22:06:33 PDT 2014
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Robinson, Paul <
Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote:
> The (limited) feedback I've had from the committee is along these lines.
>
> If the program uses the type name "S<A>" for something, the DWARF should
> fully describe the type named "S<A>" because that's the name
> as-in-the-source-program. If you use both S<A> and S<int> in the program
> in different places, then you need to describe both in the DWARF. There is
> sadly no standard way to associate the two as aliases. Yes in C++ they are
> the same; in standard DWARF they are not.
>
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with this. I've seen the thread and I'm not sure
I like the logic.
> The typedef S<A> => S<int> hack might work [if the debugger can tolerate
> that]. It is obviously not a real typedef. You could mark it artificial as
> an indication that something funny is going on (artificial typedefs being
> highly atypical).
>
> The DW_AT_specification hack is just wrong, because neither S<A> nor
> S<int> is completing the other.
>
>
>
> I need to step back from the typedef hack. I believe our debugger throws
> away the <brackets> on the theory that it can reconstruct them from
> template-parameter children; that is, the <bracket> part of the name is
> redundant. The typedef hack does not provide those children, and the
> <brackets> are not redundant, so this is likely to be a problem for us.
> Feh. I'd forgotten about that detail when I started liking the typedef
> hack. Yes, this means I don't have a suggestion, apart from emitting
> things redundantly as needed to preserve as-in-the-source-program.
>
>
> Here's a bizarre data point. Going back to at least 3.2, Clang has
> emitted S<int> instead of S<A>. But with my vector example, it used to use
> the typedef name up through 3.4. That changed in 3.5, where the type name
> 'int4' has entirely disappeared from the DWARF. Clearly that's a bug; the
> type name needs to be in there somewhere.
>
>
>
> One more thing:
>
>
>
> it'd be good to figure out how to deal with all possible names for the
> type, even the ones the user hasn't written (eg: typedef int A; typedef int
> B; and make sure that the debugger can handle S<int>, S<A> and S<B> in
> their code, even though the user only wrote one of those in the source).
>
>
>
> The answer to this "how to deal" question is with debugger smarts, not
> more complicated DWARF. DWARF is about the program as-written and
> as-compiled, not about
> anything-the-user-might-conceivably-try-to-write-in-the-debugger. Handling
> this in DWARF is a combinatorial nightmare, for completely speculative
> purposes. Not gonna happen.
>
I think it comes down to how the information is planning to be used. A
consumer with the dwarf information today could, in fact, get to the S<int>
type from a user who types S<A> pretty easily right? Now if you'd like a
way to print out the textual representation of every type as it was used in
the program that's likely to be less possible without some serious
duplication of dwarf. You could use an unnamed type for the base and then
use DW_AT_specification with just a bare DW_AT_name to avoid some of the
unpleasantness of the specification hack, but then you come to the problem
of template arguments etc. It's fairly crazy to consider, but a user could
quite easily write:
new std::vector<int, allocator>()
with some allocator that was never used in the program with vector and
expect the code to be generated at run time and the rest of the type to be
found.
Anyhow, I think the best bet is for the most general type to be left in the
debug information and then the typedefs etc to be their own DIEs. Unless we
have some use that we're not talking about here?
-eric
> --paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:03 PM
>
> *To:* Robinson, Paul
> *Cc:* llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; Greg Clayton; Frédéric Riss;
> lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; jingham at apple.com
> *Subject:* Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC][PATCH] Keep un-canonicalized template
> types in the debug information
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Robinson, Paul <
> Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote:
>
> David,
>
> Sorry, thought you were protesting the typedef idea as interfering with
> deduplication or type-unit commonality.
>
>
>
> So to recap, if we have source like this:
>
>
>
> typedef int A;
>
> template<typename T> struct S { T member; };
>
> S<A> s_a;
>
>
>
> then we'll get
>
>
>
> DW_TAG_typedef
>
> DW_AT_name "A"
>
> DW_AT_type -> int
>
>
>
> DW_TAG_structure_type
>
> DW_AT_name "S<A>"
>
> DW_TAG_member
>
> DW_AT_name "member"
>
> DW_AT_type -> int // or the typedef for "A" ?
>
> DW_TAG_template_type_parameter
>
> DW_AT_name "T"
>
> DW_AT_type -> (the typedef for "A")
>
>
>
> Are you suggesting putting the rest of S<int> here too? Or how would S<A>
> refer to S<int> for the rest of the implementation?
>
>
>
>
>
> DW_TAG_variable
>
> DW_AT_name "s_a"
>
> DW_AT_type -> (the above structure_type)
>
>
>
> Ah, no - just a typedef of the template:
>
> 1: DW_TAG_structure_type // the debug info we already produce today
> (S<int>)
> ...
>
> 2: DW_TAG_typedef
> DW_AT_name "S<A>"
> DW_AT_type (1)
>
> And honestly, the variable would still be of type (1).
>
> Duplicating the entire type for each way of naming the same type is, I'm
> fairly sure, not going to work for debuggers today. If someone wants to
> propose a way of encoding this that will need new code/support from
> debuggers, etc, then I feel the right venue to discuss that is the DWARF
> committee - because you'll need buy-in from producers and consumers.
> Without having that discussion, I believe just providing a typedef of the
> template specialization is probably a benefit to users.
>
> If we want to talk about a 'right' representation of this for DWARF that
> would necessitate more substantial changes to both DWARF producers and
> consumers... I think it'll be a bit more involved than even what you're
> proposing. If we're going to deal with that, it'd be good to figure out how
> to deal with all possible names for the type, even the ones the user hasn't
> written (eg: typedef int A; typedef int B; and make sure that the debugger
> can handle S<int>, S<A> and S<B> in their code, even though the user only
> wrote one of those in the source).
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes?
>
> --paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:09 PM
> *To:* Robinson, Paul
> *Cc:* llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; Greg Clayton; Frédéric Riss;
> lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; jingham at apple.com
> *Subject:* Re: [lldb-dev] [RFC][PATCH] Keep un-canonicalized template
> types in the debug information
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:05 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Robinson, Paul <
> Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote:
>
> >From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com]
> >On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Robinson, Paul <
> Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote:
> >> From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com]
> >> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Robinson, Paul <
> Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote:
> >> > > From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com]
> >> > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Robinson, Paul <
> Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > On 09 Sep 2014, at 00:01, jingham at apple.com wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > From the debugger's standpoint, the functional concern is
> that if you do
> >> > > > > > something more real, like:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > typedef int A;
> >> > > > > > > template <typename T>
> >> > > > > > > struct S
> >> > > > > > > {
> >> > > > > > > T my_t;
> >> > > > > > > };
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I want to make sure that the type of my_t is given as "A"
> not as "int".
> >> > > > > > The reason for that is that it is not uncommon to have data
> formatters
> >> > > > > > that trigger off the typedef name. This happens when you use
> some common
> >> > > > > > underlying type like "int" but the value has some special
> meaning when it
> >> > > > > > is formally an "A", and you want to use the data formatters
> to give it an
> >> > > > > > appropriate presentation. Since the data formatters work by
> matching type
> >> > > > > > name, starting from the most specific on down, it is
> important that the
> >> > > > > > typedef name be preserved.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > However, it would be really odd to see:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > (lldb) expr -T -- my_s
> >> > > > > > > (S<int>) $1 = {
> >> > > > > > > (A) my_t = 5
> >> > > > > > > }
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > instead of:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > (lldb) expr -T -- my_s
> >> > > > > > > (S<A>) $1 = {
> >> > > > > > > (A) my_t = 5
> >> > > > > > > }
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > so I am in favor of presenting the template parameter type
> with the most
> >> > > > > > specific name it was given in the overall template type name.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > OK, we get this wrong today. I’ll try to look into it.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > What’s your take on the debug info representation for the
> templated class
> >> > > > > > type? The tentative patch introduces a typedef that declares
> S<A> as a
> >> > > > > > typedef for S<int>. The typedef doesn’t exist in the code,
> thus I find it
> >> > > > > > a bit of a lie to the debugger. I was more in favour of
> something like :
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > DW_TAG_variable
> >> > > > > > DW_AT_type: -> DW_TAG_structure_type
> >> > > > > > DW_AT_name: S<A>
> >> > > > > > DW_AT_specification: -> DW_TAG_structure_type
> >> > > > > > DW_AT_name: S<int>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > This way the canonical type is kept in the debug information,
> and the
> >> > > > > > declaration type is a real class type aliasing the canonical
> type. But I’m
> >> > > > > > not sure debuggers can digest this kind of aliasing.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Fred
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Why introduce the extra typedef? S<A> should have a template
> parameter
> >> > > > > entry pointing to A which points to int. The info should all
> be there
> >> > > > > without any extra stuff. Or if you think something is missing,
> please
> >> > > > > provide a more complete example.
> >> > > > My immediate concern here would be either loss of information or
> bloat
> >> > > > when using that with type units (either bloat because each
> instantiation
> >> > > > with differently spelled (but identical) parameters is treated as
> a separate
> >> > > > type - or loss when the types are considered the same and all but
> one are
> >> > > > dropped at link time)
> >> > > You'll need to unpack that more because I'm not following the
> concern.
> >> > > If the typedefs are spelled differently, don't they count as
> different types?
> >> > > DWARF wants to describe the program as-written, and there's no
> S<int> written
> >> > > in the program.
> >> > >
> >> > > Maybe not in this TU, but possibly in another TU? Or by the user.
> >> > >
> >> > > void func(S<int>);
> >> > > ...
> >> > > typedef int A;
> >> > > S<A> s;
> >> > > func(s); // calls the same function
> >> > >
> >> > > The user probably wants to be able to call void func with S<int> or
> S<A>
> >> > Sure.
> >> >
> >> > > (and, actually, in theory, with S<B> where B is another typedef of
> int, but
> >> > > that'll /really/ require DWARF consumer support and/or new DWARF
> wording).
> >> >
> >> > Not DWARF wording. DWARF doesn't say when you can and can't call
> something;
> >> > that's a debugger feature and therefore a debugger decision.
> >> >
> >> What I mean is we'd need some new DWARF to help explain which types are
> >> equivalent (or the debugger would have to do a lot of spelunking to try
> >> to find structurally equivalent types - "S<B>" and "S<A>", go look
> through
> >> their DW_TAG_template_type_params, see if they are typedefs to the same
> >> underlying type, etc... )
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > We can't emit these as completely independent types - it would be
> verbose
> >> > > (every instantiation with different typedefs would be a whole
> separate type
> >> > > in the DWARF, not deduplicated by type units, etc) and wrong
> >> >
> >> > Yes, "typedef int A;" creates a synonym/alias not a new type, so S<A>
> and S<int>
> >> > describe the same type from the C++ perspective, so you don't want
> two complete
> >> > descriptions with different names, because that really would be
> describing them
> >> > as separate types. What wrinkles my brow is having S<int> be the
> "real"
> >> > description even though it isn't instantiated that way in the
> program. I wonder
> >> > if it should be marked artificial... but if you do instantiate S<int>
> in another
> >> > TU then you don't want that. Huh. It also seems weird to have this:
> >> > DW_TAG_typedef
> >> > DW_AT_name "S<A>"
> >> > DW_AT_type -> S<int>
> >> > but I seem to be coming around to thinking that's the most viable way
> to have
> >> > a single actual instantiated type, and still have the correct names
> of things
> >*mostly* correct; this still loses "A" as the type of the data member.
> >
> >For the DW_TAG_template_type_parameter, you mean? No, it wouldn't.
> >
> > (as a side note, if you do actually have a data member (or any other
> mention) of
> >the template parameter type, neither Clang nor GCC really get that
> 'right' -
> >"template<typename T> struct foo { T t; }; foo<int> f;" - in both Clang
> and GCC,
> >the type of the 't' member of foo<int> is a direct reference to the "int"
> DIE, not
> >to the DW_TAG_template_type_parameter for "T" -> int)
>
> Huh. And DWARF doesn't say you should point to the
> template_type_parameter...
> I thought it did, but no. Okay, so nothing is lost, but it feels desirable
> to me, that uses of the template parameter should cite it in the DWARF as
> well.
> But I guess we can leave that part of the debate for another time.
>
> >
> >Crud.
> >But I haven't come up with a way to get that back without basically
> instantiating
> >S<A> and S<int> separately.
> >
> >> >
> >> Yep - it's the only way I can think of giving this information in a way
> that's
> >> likely to work with existing consumers. It would probably be harmless
> to add
> >> DW_AT_artificial to the DW_TAG_typedef, if that's any help to any debug
> info
> >> consumer.
> >
> >Hmmm no, S<A> is not the artificial name;
> >
> >It's not the artificial name, but it is an artificial typedef.
>
> If the source only says S<A>, then the entire S<int> description is
> artificial,
> because *that's not what the user wrote*. So both the typedef and the
> class type
> are artificial. Gah. Let's forget artificial here.
>
> >
> >some debuggers treat DW_AT_artificial
> >as meaning "don't show this to the user."
> >
> >In some sense that's what I want - we never wrote the typedef in the
> source
> >so I wouldn't want to see it rendered in the "list of typedefs" (or even
> >probably in the list of types, maybe).
> >
> >But S<A> is the name we *do* want to
> >show to the user.
> >
> >Maybe. Sometimes. But there could be many such aliases for the type. (&
> many
> >more that were never written in the source code, but are still valid in
> the
> >source language (every other typedef of int, every other way to name the
> int
> >type (decltype, etc)))
>
> But you *lose* cases where the typedef is the *same* *everywhere*. And in
> many cases that typedef is a valuable thing, not the trivial rename we've
> been bandying about. This is a more real example:
>
> typedef int int4 __attribute__((ext_vector_type(4)));
> template<typename T> struct TypeTraits {};
> template<>
> struct TypeTraits<int4> {
> static unsigned MysteryNumber;
> };
> unsigned TypeTraits<int4>::MysteryNumber = 3U;
>
> Displaying "TypeTraits<int __attribute__((ext_vector_type(4)))>" is much
> worse than "TypeTraits<int4>" (and not just because it's shorter).
> More to the point, having the debugger *complain* when the user says
> something like "ptype TypeTraits<int4>" is a problem.
>
> Reducing debug-info size is a worthy goal, but don't degrade the debugging
> experience to get there.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure which part of what I've said seemed like a suggestion to
> degrade the debugging experience to minimize debug info size (the
> proposition that we should use a typedef or other alias on top of the
> canonical type? It wouldn't cause "ptype TypeTraits<int4>" to complain -
> indeed for GDB ptyping a typedef gives /exactly/ the same output as if you
> ptype the underlying type - it doesn't even mention that there's a typedef
> involved:
>
> typedef fooA foo<int>;
>
>
>
> (keyboard shortcuts are hard - accidentally sent before I finished)
>
> (gdb) ptype fooA
>
> type = struct foo<int> [with T = int] {
>
> <no data fields>
>
> }
>
> But in any case, I think what I'm saying boils down to:
>
> Short of changing debug info consumers, I think the only thing we can do
> is DW_TAG_typedef. That'll work for existing consumers.
>
> Anything else will need possibly new DWARF wording, or at least an
> agreement between a variety of debug info consumers and producers that some
> new cliche/use of existing DWARF be used to describe these situations.
>
> I could be wrong - if someone wants to try prototyping the
> DW_TAG_structure_type proposal Fred had and see if existing debuggers work
> with that, sure.
>
> I'm not opposed to someone coming up with a standardizable more
> descriptive form than DW_TAG_typedef, but that conversation probably needs
> to happen with the DWARF Committee more than the LLVM community.
>
> - David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --paulr
>
>
> >
> >
> >> That said, I'm not opposed to proposing something to DWARF to define
> some more
> >> 'proper' way to describe this.
> >
> >Yah. I've been thinking about the DW_AT_specification idea too, which
> would be
> >something like this:
> > DW_TAG_class_type
> > DW_AT_name "S<A>"
> > DW_AT_specification -> S<int>
> >
> > DW_TAG_template_type_parameter
> > DW_AT_name "T"
> > DW_AT_type -> A
> >
> >The problem with this is you don't know where T is used in the template,
> so
> >you *still* don't know when to use A as the type of "field". Also it's
> kind
> >of an abuse of DW_AT_specification. If we can't get A as the type of
> "field"
> >then the typedef is more straightforward and understandable.
> >
> >It's still a lot of DWARF to emit for every way the user has named the
> template
> >& I'm not sure how much value it provides - are there use cases you have
> in mind
> >that would benefit from the increased fidelity of knowing which template
> argument
> >corresponds to the way the user wrote the type.
> >
> > (& what would we emit if the user named the type in some other more
> exotic way:
> >int func(); template<typename T> struct S { }; ... S<decltype(func())> s;
> )
> >
> >
> >Maybe I'll pop a note to the DWARF committee for a broader set of
> opinions.
> >
> >>
> >> One other open question is then, when, if ever, to reference the
> DW_TAG_typedef
> >> rather than the underlying type? Do we just reference it whenever the
> user
> >> writes using that name?
> >>
> >> void f(S<A>);
> >> ...
> >> void f(S<B>) { ... }
> >>
> >> etc... (this would be just as possible/we could maybe treat it the same
> as if
> >> the user wrote "void f(A); ... void f(B) { ... }")
> >
> >That's what I would do, and I think is more conformant to the DWARF spec.
> >--paulr
> >
> >>
> >> > (because DWARF is all about the name "as it appears in the source
> program.")
> >> >
> >> > > (the debugger wouldn't know these are actually the same type so
> wouldn't
> >> > > allow function calls, etc).
> >> > >
> >> > > - David
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Jim
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >> On Sep 8, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Frédéric Riss <friss at apple.com>
> wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>> On 08 Sep 2014, at 19:31, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com>
> wrote:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> This means you will see "S<A>" as the type for your variables
> in the
> >> > > debugger when you view variables or children of
> structs/unions/classes. I
> >> > > think this is not what the user would want to see. I would rather
> see
> >> > > "S<int>" as the type for my variable than see "S<A>”.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I find it more accurate for the debugger to report what has
> actually
> >> > > been put in the code. Moreover when a typedef is used, it’s usually
> to
> >> > > make things more readable not to hide information, thus I guess it
> would
> >> > > usually be as informative while being more compact. The debugger
> needs to
> >> > > have a way to describe the real type behind the abbreviated name
> though,
> >> > > we must not have less information compared to what we have today.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Another point: this allows the debugger to know what S<A>
> actually is.
> >> > > Without it, the debugger only knows the canonical type. This means
> that
> >> > > currently you can’t copy/paste a piece of code that references that
> kind
> >> > > of template names and have it parse correctly. I /think/ that
> having this
> >> > > information in the debug info will allow more of this to work.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> But we can agree to disagree :-) It would be great to have more
> people
> >> > > chime and give their opinion.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Fred
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 4:00 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com>
> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 3:49 PM, Eric Christopher <
> echristo at gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith
> >> > > <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> On 2014 Sep 5, at 16:01, Frédéric Riss <friss at apple.com>
> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> I couldn’t even find a subject expressing exactly what this
> patch
> >> > > is about… First of all, it’s meant to start a discussion, and I’m
> not
> >> > > proposing it for inclusion right now.
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> The issue I’m trying to address is that template types are
> always
> >> > > canonicalized when emitted in the debug information (this is the
> desugar()
> >> > > call in UnwrapTypeForDebugInformation).
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> This means that if the developer writes:
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> typedef int A;
> >> > > >>>>>> template <typename T>
> >> > > >>>>>> struct S {};
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> S<A> var;
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> The variable var will have type S<int> and not S<A>. In this
> simple
> >> > > example, it’s not that much of an issue, but for heavily templated
> code,
> >> > > the full expansion might be really different from the original
> >> > > declaration.
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> The attached patch makes us emit an intermediate typedef for
> the
> >> > > variable’s type:
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> 0x0000002a: DW_TAG_variable [2]
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] (
> >> > > .debug_str[0x00000032] = “var")
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (cu + 0x0040 =>
> >> > > {0x00000040})
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_external [DW_FORM_flag] (0x01)
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_decl_file [DW_FORM_data1] (0x01)
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_decl_line [DW_FORM_data1] (8)
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_location [DW_FORM_block1] (<0x09> 03 70 6c
> 00 00
> >> > > 00 00 00 00 )
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> 0x00000040: DW_TAG_typedef [3]
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (cu + 0x004b =>
> >> > > {0x0000004b})
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] (
> >> > >.debug_str[0x00000035] = “S<A>")
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_decl_file [DW_FORM_data1] (0x01)
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_decl_line [DW_FORM_data1] (6)
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> 0x0000004b: DW_TAG_structure_type [4] *
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] (
> >> > >.debug_str[0x0000003e] = “S<int>")
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_byte_size [DW_FORM_data1] (0x01)
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_decl_file [DW_FORM_data1] (0x01)
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_decl_line [DW_FORM_data1] (6)
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> Which basically is what I want, although I don’t like that it
> >> > > introduces a typedef where there is none in the code. I’d prefer
> that to
> >> > > be:
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_TAG_variable
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_type: -> DW_TAG_structure_type
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_name: S<A>
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_specification: -> DW_TAG_structure_type
> >> > > >>>>>> DW_AT_name: S<int>
> >> > > >>>>>> …
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> The patch also has the nice property of omitting the
> defaulted
> >> > > template arguments in the first level typedef. For example you get
> >> > > vector<A> instead of vector<int, std::__1::allocator<int> >.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> If you specify `vector<int>` in C++ do you get that instead of
> >> > > >>>>> `vector<int, std::__1::allocator<int>>`?
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Yeah, I mentioned this as possibly causing problems with
> debuggers
> >> > > or other consumers, but I don't have any proof past "ooooo scary!”.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Well, [+lldb-dev], could this confuse debuggers? :-)
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> -- adrian
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> That said, I like the idea personally :)
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> -eric
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> Now there is one thing I really don’t like about the patch.
> In
> >> > > order not to emit typedefs for types that don’t need it, I use
> string
> >> > > comparison between the desugared and the original type. I haven’t
> >> > > quantified anything, but doing the construction of the type name
> for every
> >> > > template type and then comparing it to decide to use it or not
> seems like
> >> > > a big waste.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Maybe someone on cfe-dev knows a better way.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> Thoughts?
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> <template-arg-typedefs.diff>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> Fred
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> > > >>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
> >> > > >>>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> >> > > >>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> >> > > >>>> 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
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > llvm-commits mailing list
> >> > > llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> >> > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > llvm-commits mailing list
> >> > llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20140918/ccd210aa/attachment.html>
More information about the lldb-dev
mailing list