[PATCH] D127623: [Debug] [Coroutine] Adjust the scope and name for coroutine frame

[David Blaikie via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

dblaikie added a comment.

In D127623#3580865 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D127623#3580865>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:

> In D127623#3580751 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D127623#3580751>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:
>
>> In D127623#3579786 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D127623#3579786>, @dblaikie wrote:
>>
>>> I believe there's particular syntax that's supported by demanglers for suffixes - (specifically, at least for itanium, using "." to separate the suffix from the symbol name will support demanglers doing good things with the name when demangling) - could you check whether that applies here, if we have any tools/utility functions that handle this sort of suffix additions in a portable/tool-compatible way, etc, and do that?
>>
>> For c++filt, the result for `_ZL9coro_taski.coro_frame_ty` is 'coro_task(int) [clone .coro_frame_ty]' and for llvm-cxxfilt, the corresponding result is `coro_task(int) (.coro_frame_ty)`. I feel things are better now.
>
> Oh, this one might be problematic. Now the debugger complains for the following command:
>
>     (gdb) # 0x418eb0 is the address of a coroutine frame
>     (gdb )p (_ZL9coro_taski.coro_frame_ty)*0x418eb0
>   Attempt to extract a component of a value that is not a structure.
>
> It looks like the debugger treat `_ZL9coro_taski.coro_frame_ty` as a function name to me.

oh, `_ZL9coro_taski` is a function name - but because you were appending "__coro_frame_ty" to the end of it you were breaking the mangling and causing the consumer to no longer recognize it as a function?

hmm, I guess because the mangling includes parameter types it interprets it as a function. Fair enough I suppose.

Yeah, maybe there's some other separator that could be used that'd at least make it easier for a human to know where the mangled name ends and the suffix begins that doesn't confuse a debugger - that way the human could always pass the mangled portion to a demangler (c++filt, etc) to get the original function name? (or maybe using a prefix instead of a suffix, and the "_Z" would stand out enough to make it easy for a human to copy/paste "_Z" to the end of the name and demangle that? Not sure.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D127623/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D127623