Fixing Bug 41152
Details
- Reviewers
JDevlieghere probinson jhenderson fhahn dblaikie aprantl jmorse keith.walker.arm SouraVX - Group Reviewers
Restricted Project - Commits
- rG51d969dc27a8: [DebugInfo] Bug 41152 - Improve dumping of empty location expressions
Diff Detail
Event Timeline
Please clang-format the patch :)
FYI https://llvm.org/docs/Contributing.html#how-to-submit-a-patch
llvm/lib/DebugInfo/DWARF/DWARFExpression.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
329 | How about factoring this as: if (!Data.getData().size()) OS << "(empty)"; |
llvm/lib/DebugInfo/DWARF/DWARFExpression.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
329 | Probably best to go the whole way: if (Data.getData().empty()) OS << "(empty)"; ? |
llvm/lib/DebugInfo/DWARF/DWARFExpression.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
329 | Below we're using <> to signal out-of-band errors like <unknown register>, so perhaps this should be "<empty>" |
Update Revision D103502: Bug 41152 - [DebugInfo] Better dumping of empty location expression
llvm/lib/DebugInfo/DWARF/DWARFExpression.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
330 | Indentation (please run the change through clang-format (only the changed lines, there's a utility that can do this (reformat only the changed lines) for you - in clang/tools/clang-format/git-clang-format) And also probably remove the braces - LLVM code doesn't usually use braces on single line blocks. |
Update Revision D103502: Bug 41152 - [DebugInfo] Better dumping of empty location expression
Mostly looks good to me, but would be nice if one of the earlier reviewers gives thumbs up before we commit this patch.
If I'd written this patch myself, I'd have probably also added a new dedicated test that explicitly checks the output for empty location ranges. It looks like the existing test is producing an empty range as a side-effect of the behaviour under test, and so it would be quite possible that the test coverage would be lost if this beahviour changed/the testing method changed for it. What do others think?
Bug 41152 - [DebugInfo] Better dumping of empty location expression
As a tip for this summary - we usually put tags at the start of the summary, so I'd relabel this as "[DebugInfo] Bug 41152 - Improve dumping of empty location expressions". Note also the slight change of wording too ("improve" is a verb, making the summary a full imperative sentence).
FYI for the other reviewers: as I believe this is @sohamdixit's first LLVM patch to land, I'm happy to push it for him once approval has been given.
It looks like the existing test is producing an empty range as a side-effect of the behaviour under test, and so it would be quite possible that the test coverage would be lost if this beahviour changed/the testing method changed for it. What do others think?
+1, I think one small asm test case with just related things (section .debug_loclists and the entry) would be great to have.
Sort of :
$ cat test.s .Lfunc_begin0: .Ltmp1: .section .debug_loclists, "",@progbits .long .Ldebug_list_header_end0-.Ldebug_list_header_start0 # Length .Ldebug_list_header_start0: .short 5 # Version .byte 8 # Address size .byte 0 # Segment selector size .long 1 # Offset entry count .Lloclists_table_base0: .long .Ldebug_loc0-.Lloclists_table_base0 .Ldebug_loc0: .byte 4 # DW_LLE_offset_pair .uleb128 .Lfunc_begin0-.Lfunc_begin0 # starting offset .uleb128 .Ltmp1-.Lfunc_begin0 # ending offset .byte 0 ### empty .byte 0 # DW_LLE_end_of_list .Ldebug_list_header_end0:
Which materializing into existing thing & post this should materialize into <empty>
$ llvm-dwarfdump --debug-loclists test.o test.o: file format elf64-x86-64 .debug_loclists contents: locations list header: length = 0x00000011, format = DWARF32, version = 0x0005, addr_size = 0x08, seg_size = 0x00, offset_entry_count = 0x00000001 offsets: [ 0x00000004 ] 0x00000010: DW_LLE_offset_pair (0x0000000000000000, 0x0000000000000000):
Sure, I'm OK with it. Hadn't given it a great deal of thought/look other than out of concern for how the DWARF parsing libraries might be impacted.
If I'd written this patch myself, I'd have probably also added a new dedicated test that explicitly checks the output for empty location ranges. It looks like the existing test is producing an empty range as a side-effect of the behaviour under test, and so it would be quite possible that the test coverage would be lost if this beahviour changed/the testing method changed for it. What do others think?
Yep, sounds like a fair point to me.
Bug 41152 - [DebugInfo] Better dumping of empty location expression
As a tip for this summary - we usually put tags at the start of the summary, so I'd relabel this as "[DebugInfo] Bug 41152 - Improve dumping of empty location expressions". Note also the slight change of wording too ("improve" is a verb, making the summary a full imperative sentence).
Also can be nice to write the bug as "PR41152" rather than "Bug 41152" - it's a bit more obscure, but PR* syntax is pretty common in LLVM and a few characters shorter to fit in the commit message limits.
LGTM once my comments have been addressed.
llvm/test/MC/X86/dwarf-improve-empty-location-exp.test | ||
---|---|---|
1 | As this test is about testing functionality in the DebugInfo library, I'd move it into llvm/test/DebugInfo/X86. Also, I'd rename the test file to "dwarf-empty-expression.s":
| |
mypatch.patch | ||
1 | I don't think you meant to add this file to your patch. |
It looks like these change broken some lldb tests. The windows bot already had a couple of failures, so you may have missed it:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/83/builds/7757
The newly broken test is debug_loc.s
How about factoring this as: