[PATCH] [dwarfdump] Print the name for referenced specification of abstract_origin DIEs.

[Adrian Prantl]

> On Oct 3, 2014, at 4:33 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Oct 3, 2014, at 4:06 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Frederic Riss <friss at apple.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ================
>>> Comment at: test/DebugInfo/Inputs/gmlt.ll:46
>>> @@ -45,3 +45,3 @@
>>> 
>>> -; CHECK: [[F3_ABS_DEF:.*]]:  DW_TAG_subprogram
>>> +; CHECK: DW_TAG_subprogram
>>> ; CHECK-NEXT:     DW_AT_name {{.*}} "f3"
>>> ----------------
>>> dblaikie wrote:
>>>> Not sure - might even be worth dropping these abstract subprograms
>>>> entirely when they're not checking anything interesting (just the name is
>>>> being checked by the abstract_definition check you modified below). *shrug*
>>>> dunno.
>>> Unfortunately, in some test cases they have to stay because they 'consume'
>>> a part of the file. If I had removed this one, then the next TAG_subprogram
>>> would match the abstract DIE and the test would fail. This is one of the
>>> biggest shortcomings of testing the Dwarf contents with FileCheck IMHO.
>> 
>> 
>> Agreed - usually the way I do this is just to skip over the unintersting
>> tags as quickly as possible (you'll see a few test cases that just hawe
>> "CHECK: DW_TAG_subprogram" three times in a row, etc). Open to ideas on the
>> best way to do that. Perhaps they sometimes merit comments, or not, perhaps
>> sometimes they could just be a "CHECK: DW_TAG" to even more opaquely skip
>> over uninteresting tags.
>> 
>> 
>> At some point it might make sense to either make llvm-dwardump also emit a
>> syntax that is more amenable to FileCheck (one TAG per line), or the other
>> way round.
>> 
> 
> Seems reasonable. Each child gets a line? Probably wouldn't want it
> for anything but machine based consumption, but it could be handy.

Oh yeah, I was imagining a flag that is only used when piping the output into FileCheck. The exact behavior is a bit tricky, because the dwarf tree is arbitrarily nested. Maybe have each leaf being output on a line of its own.

Another option is to implement some of Darwin dwarfdump’s filtering options, so we could ask llvm-dwarfdump to only emit the debug info for “foo” and, e.g., all of its parents and then match only that output, and maybe have several dwarfdump invocations per test case.

-- adrian
> 
> -eric
> 
>> -- adrian
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ================
>>> Comment at: test/DebugInfo/X86/inline-member-function.ll:24
>>> @@ +23,3 @@
>>> +; CHECK: DW_AT_specification {{.*}} "_ZN3foo4funcEi"
>>> +; CHECK-NOT: NULL
>>> +; CHECK-NOT: TAG
>>> ----------------
>>> dblaikie wrote:
>>>> Could write this as {{NULL|TAG}} (& update the other one nearby to do
>>>> that for consistency). If you like.
>>> Will do
>>> 
>>> ================
>>> Comment at: test/DebugInfo/X86/inline-seldag-test.ll:14
>>> @@ -13,3 +13,1 @@
>>> 
>>> -; CHECK: [[F:.*]]: DW_TAG_subprogram
>>> -; CHECK-NOT: DW_TAG
>>> ----------------
>>> dblaikie wrote:
>>>> I see you dropped the abs def checking in this case - why this case &
>>>> not others?
>>> Because in this case, noone else tries to match a TAG_subprogram, the test
>>> bellow is for an inline_subroutine.
>>> 
>>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D5466
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>