[llvm-dev] [LLD] Support DWARF64, debug_info "sorting"

Fri Nov 13 17:46:56 PST 2020

Thanks for doing a diff and asking in other groups.

So if I understand your concern with using first reloc as it relates to .debug_str.

In DWARF4 for .debug_str is referenced from .debug_info, .debug_type using DW_FORM_strp. For DWARF32 it's 32bit unsigned, for DWARF64 it's 64bit unsigned. So in relocation section for some .debug_info section we will have a relocation entry to patch up DW_FORM_strp. Either R_X86_64_32, or R_X86_64_64, depending on DWARF format.

A situation we might have is that an input .debug_info section is DWARF32 so it gets ordered apropriatly within output .debug_info section, but the input .debug_str section can be put in the output .debug_str section that is above 4GB. In which case we still hit overflow. So we also need to oder the .debug_str section, except in DWARF4 there is no real clear link, besides looking through .debug_info relocs.

Is that a correct summary?

Also I don't quite understand what the issue is with linker script.

My understanding is that:

.debug_str 0 : { *(.debug_str) }

Just stays that all .debug_str input sections should go in to .debug_str output section. It doesn't really specify the ordering within the output .debug_str section.

Thank You
Alex
________________________________
From: Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com>
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 12:42 PM
To: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
Cc: Wenlei He <wenlei at fb.com>; Alexander Yermolovich <ayermolo at fb.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>; James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk>; Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>; Igor Kudrin <ikudrin at accesssoftek.com>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [LLD] Support DWARF64, debug_info "sorting"

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:29 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:24 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:17 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:05 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I got replies from Nick Clifton and Michael Matz:
> > > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2020-November/114116.html
> > > > (and its reply).
> > > > I have mentioned (a) the difficulty of the
> > > > detecting-DWARF64-by-first-relocation approach and (b) the section
> > > > type approach  in my reply there
> > > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2020-November/114125.html
> > > >
> > > > (a) My prototype has made me feel uneasy with this approach.
> > > >
> > > > <quote>
> > > > In DWARF v4 or if .debug_str_offset is not used, it is a problem. A
> > > > heuristic is: if an input section in a file is marked DWARF64, we mark
> > > > all other .debug_* DWARF64. This makes me feel a bit uneasy because
> > > > for an output section description
> > > >
> > > >    .debug_str 0 : { *(.debug_str) }
> > > >
> > > > Now the behavior of `*` (or, if we invent a `SORT_*` keyword) is also
> > > > dependent on other output sections.
> > > > </quote>
> > > >
> > > > (b)
> > > > * It needs a section type (either a gABI one or a SHT_GNU_* in GNU
> > > > ABI). Seeking for a gABI one is not that I think this is particularly
> > > > related to gABI but that I don't want Solaris (which LLVM also
> > > > supports) uses a different section type to unnecessarily cause
> > > > friction on our implementation
> > >
> > > If I'm understawding you correrctly you're suggesting the sorting
> > > behavior would only be implemented if the input object file had some
> > > new attributes in it designating which sections are debug info
> > > sections?
> > >
> > > I don't think that's a viable solution to the problem at hand, then -
> > > if someone is able to update their toolchain and rebuild objects with
> > > new attributes, they can probably update the build configuration of
> > > those objects to build them with DWARF64 instead, avoiding the mixed
> > > 32/64 problem. I think the solution we're looking for would have to
> > > work with existing precompiled object files using DWARF32 that are in
> > > the wild today, without modification.
> >
> > I know the "no-modification" requirement:) The first paragraph of
> > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2020-November/114125.html
> > mentioned this.
>
> OK - thanks for clarifying. I don't really know much/enough about
> linker scripts to comment on the rest of the design, and was just
> confused/misunderstanding what was being suggested.

For .debug_* in object files:

DWARF32 -> SHT_PROGBITS (unchanged)
DWARF64 -> SHT_DWARF64 or SHT_GNU_DWARF64

In LLD, we will need to allow mixed SHT_PROGBITS and SHT_DWARF64. If
all input sections are SHT_DWARF64, the output section type probably
should also be SHT_DWARF64.
If mixed, SHT_PROGBITS.

FWIW I started a generic-abi thread
https://groups.google.com/g/generic-abi/c/i2Xio-47QdQ  ("Reserve a
section type value for DWARF64") to give stakeholders from other ELF
operating systems a chance to participate in the design. I have paid
attention to my wording: a new section type is **not decided yet** on
LLVM/GNU binutils sides. Our discussions on llvm-dev/binutils will
benefit from agreement/disagreement from generic-abi.

> >
> > The section type approach is used this way (in another paragraph):
> >
> > <quote>
> > If we invent a keyword (say, TYPE) to match sections by type, we could use
> >
> >    .debug_info     0 : { *(TYPE (SHT_PROGBITS)
> > .debug_info${RELOCATING+ .gnu.linkonce.wi.*}) }
> >    .debug_info     0 : { *(TYPE (SHT_GNU_DWARF64) .debug_info) }
> >
> > or
> >
> >    .debug_info     0 : { *(TYPE (SHT_PROGBITS)
> > .debug_info${RELOCATING+ .gnu.linkonce.wi.*} TYPE (SHT_GNU_DWARF64)
> > .debug_info) }
> > </quote>
> >
> > > > * It needs a clarification on multiple output section descriptions
> > > > with the same name.
> > > > * It needs a linker script feature to match input sections by type.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 9:52 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 8:35 AM Wenlei He via llvm-dev
> > > > > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >  Thinking about it, I wouldn't expect an LTO generated object itself to have a mixture of DWARF32/64, although I guess the 32/64 bit state could be encoded in the IR (I am not familiar enough with it to know if it actually is or not). It might be necessary to find ways to configure LTO to generate DWARF64, possibly via a link-time option.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don’t think we need to encode dwarf32/64 in IR as attribute for each module. We’re not going to emit mixed dwarf32/64 for merged LTO module anyways, so allowing each module to express its dwarf setting would only introduce burden for LTO to deal with inconsistency (warning?) among input modules. Having a linker switch to pass the setting from driver to LTO sounds better to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Usually the issue there is that existing build systems may be setup
> > > > > only to pass such flags to the compilations, and not to the link
> > > > > invocations - like DWARF version, we pass that down through IR, emit
> > > > > warnings/errors when two IR modules with different DWARF versions are
> > > > > linked together, and then emit only one (the higher, I believe) DWARF
> > > > > version out the other end.
> > > > >
> > > > > We aren't 100% consistent on this "anything you could do without LTO,
> > > > > you shuold be able to do with LTO/passing the same flags to the same
> > > > > actions" kind of strategy (eg: type units and DWARF compression aren't
> > > > > passed down through IR - if you want those you have to pass them to
> > > > > the link invocation (via the clang driver) yourself). So it's more "is
> > > > > there a systemic use of these flags already for the compilation and
> > > > > would not supporting it there be a pain"? It's probably not for
> > > > > DWARF64, since we haven't had any flag to support it at the moment
> > > > > anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Dave
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
> > > > > > Date: Thursday, November 12, 2020 at 2:21 AM
> > > > > > To: Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com>
> > > > > > Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [LLD] Support DWARF64, debug_info "sorting"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 02:10, Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2020-11-12, Alexander Yermolovich wrote:
> > > > > > >Thanks for feedback.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I agree with patch and numbers this will be a more concrete discussion, but I wanted to judge overall receptiveness to this approach and see maybe there was a better way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >"Whilst the majority of objects will only have a single CU in them, there will be exceptions (LTO-generated objects, -r merged objects etc), so we do need to consider this approach."
> > > > > > >David can you elaborate under which conditions LTO-generated objects will have a mix of DWARF32/64 in same .debug_info? Looking at how dwarf64 was implemented same flag will be used for the entirety of the dwarf output, even if multiple CUs are included.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thinking about it, I wouldn't expect an LTO generated object itself to have a mixture of DWARF32/64, although I guess the 32/64 bit state could be encoded in the IR (I am not familiar enough with it to know if it actually is or not). It might be necessary to find ways to configure LTO to generate DWARF64, possibly via a link-time option.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >On one hand since this is only applicable for when DWARF64 is used, special option would be the way to go. Although the user will need to be aware of yet another LLD option. Maybe an error when relocations overflow occur can be modified to display this option along with -fdebug-types-section
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am quite happy with the relocation approach under a linker option. I'd still
> > > > > > want to know generic-abi folks's thoughts, though. James may have prepared something
> > > > > > he wants to share with generic-abi:) Let's wait...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I hadn't prepared anything if I'm honest (though if there's widespread agreement that this would be useful, I certainly can - it would have other positive improvements too, reducing the need for tools to rely on section names to identify debug data for example). It was more a case of bouncing ideas off of people to see what they thought. Any discussion we have will probably also need circulating on the DWARF mailing list too, since it is more a DWARF issue than a gABI issue (unless the solution is a new section type). Further refinements to this idea that might make it more appealing to the generic group: `SHT_DEBUG` for the section type name, with the first N bytes of the sh_info used to specify the variant of debug data it represents (e.g. 0x1 for DWARF, 0x2 for SOME_OTHER_STANDARD etc), and the remainder for use as flags as defined by the standard (I'm thinking for DWARF you could encode the 64-bit/32-bit state in there, possibly the section variant (info/rnglists/line etc) and the DWARF version too), on the understanding that consumers like the linker wouldn't combine sections in a potentially broken way. This has the advantage that it could be retrofitted to the existing standard versions, but as has been pointed out, this won't help those with linker scripts - that could only be solved with a new DWARF standard and separate names for 64/32 bit sections, at least if we wanted to avoid the linker needing to do anything beyond reading the section header.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The relocation approach sounds like a reasonable solution for the current situation - even if we do decide to go the route of changing producers to start emitting a new section type/update the standard etc, it doesn't resolve the problem people may currently face.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > > > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > > > > > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 宋方睿
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 宋方睿

--
宋方睿
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201114/4d0b0d0e/attachment-0001.html>