Index: clang/docs/DebuggingCoroutines.rst =================================================================== --- /dev/null +++ clang/docs/DebuggingCoroutines.rst @@ -0,0 +1,400 @@ +======================== +Debugging C++ Coroutines +======================== + +.. contents:: + :local: + +Introduction +============ + +For performance and other architectural reasons, the C++ Coroutines feature in +the Clang compiler is implemented in two parts of the compiler. Semantic +analysis is performed in Clang, and Coroutine construction and optimization +takes place in the LLVM middle-end. + +However, this design forces us to generate insufficient debugging information. +Typically, the compiler generates debug information in the Clang frontend, as +debug information is highly language specific. However, this is not possible +for Coroutine frames because the frames are constructed in the LLVM middle-end. + +To mitigate this problem, the LLVM middle end attempts to generate some debug +information, which is unfortunately incomplete, since much of the language +specific information is missing in the middle end. + +This document describes how to use this debug information to better debug +coroutines. + +Terminology +=========== + +Due to the recent nature of C++20 Coroutines, the terminology used to describe +the concepts of Coroutines is not settled. This section defines a common, +understandable terminology to be used consistently throughout this document. + +coroutine type +-------------- + +A `coroutine function` is any function that contains any of the Coroutine +Keywords `co_await`, `co_yield`, or `co_return`. A `coroutine type` is a +possible return type of one of these `coroutine functions`. `Task` and +`Generator` are commonly referred to coroutine types. + +coroutine +--------- + +By technical definition, a `coroutine` is a suspendable function. However, +programmers typically use `coroutine` to refer to an individual instance. +For example: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + std::vector Coros; // Task is a coroutine type. + for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) + Coros.push_back(CoroTask()); // CoroTask is a coroutine function, which + // would return a coroutine type 'Task'. + +In practice, we typically say "`Coros` contains 3 coroutines" in the above +example, though this is not strictly correct. More technically, this should +say "`Coros` contains 3 coroutine instances" or "Coros contains 3 coroutine +objects." + +In this document, we follow the common practice of using `coroutine` to refer +to an individual `coroutine instance`, since the terms `coroutine instance` and +`coroutine object` aren't sufficiently defined in this case. + +coroutine frame +--------------- + +The C++ Standard uses `coroutine state` to describe the allocated storage. In +the compiler, we use `coroutine frame` to describe the generated data structure +that contains the necessary information. + +The structure of coroutine frames +================================= + +The structure of coroutine frames is defined as: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + struct { + void (*__r)(); // function pointer to the `resume` function + void (*__d)(); // function pointer to the `destroy` function + promise_type; // the corresponding `promise_type` + ... // Any other needed information + } + +In the debugger, the function's name is obtainable from the address of the +function. And the name of `resume` function is equal to the name of the +coroutine function. So the name of the coroutine is obtainable once the +address of the coroutine is known. + +Print promise_type +================== + +Every coroutine has a `promise_type`, which defines the behavior +for the corresponding coroutine. In other words, if two coroutines have the +same `promise_type`, they should behave in the same way. +To print a `promise_type` in a debugger when stopped at a breakpoint inside a +coroutine, printing the `promise_type` can be done by: + +.. parsed-literal:: + + print __promise + +It is also possible to print the `promise_type` of a coroutine from the address +of the coroutine frame. For example, if the address of a coroutine frame is +0x416eb0, and the type of the `promise_type` is `task::promise_type`, printing +the `promise_type` can be done by: + +.. parsed-literal:: + + print (task::promise_type)*(0x416eb0+0x10) + +This is possible because the `promise_type` is guaranteed by the ABI to be at a +16 bit offset from the coroutine frame. + +Note that there is also an ABI independent method: + +.. parsed-literal:: + + print std::coroutine_handle::from_address((void*)0x416eb0).promise() + +The functions `from_address(void*)` and `promise()` are often small enough to +be removed during optimization, so this method may not be possible. + +Print coroutine frames +====================== + +LLVM generates the debug information for the coroutine frame in the LLVM middle +end, which permits printing of the coroutine frame in the debugger. Much like +the `promise_type`, when stopped at a breakpoint inside a coroutine we can +print the coroutine frame by: + +.. parsed-literal:: + + print __coro_frame + + +Just as printing the `promise_type` is possible from the coroutine address, +printing the details of the coroutine frame from an address is also possible: + +.. parsed-literal:: + + (gdb) # Get the address of coroutine frame + (gdb) print/x *0x418eb0 + $1 = 0x4019e0 + (gdb) # Get the linkage name for the coroutine + (gdb) x 0x4019e0 + 0x4019e0 <_ZL9coro_taski>: 0xe5894855 + (gdb) # The coroutine frame type is 'linkage name + __coro_frame_ty' + (gdb) print (_ZL9coro_taski.coro_frame_ty)*(0x418eb0) + $2 = {__resume_fn = 0x4019e0 , __destroy_fn = 0x402000 , __promise = {...}, ...} + +The above is possible because: + +(1) The name of the debug type of the coroutine frame is the `linkage_name`, +plus the `.coro_frame_ty` suffix because each coroutine function shares the +same coroutine type. + +(2) The coroutine function name is accessible from the address of the coroutine +frame. + +The above commands can be simplified by placing them in debug scripts. + +Examples to print coroutine frames +---------------------------------- + +The print examples below use the following definition: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + #include + #include + + struct task{ + struct promise_type { + task get_return_object() { return std::coroutine_handle::from_promise(*this); } + std::suspend_always initial_suspend() { return {}; } + std::suspend_always final_suspend() noexcept { return {}; } + void return_void() noexcept {} + void unhandled_exception() noexcept {} + + int count = 0; + }; + + void resume() noexcept { + handle.resume(); + } + + task(std::coroutine_handle hdl) : handle(hdl) {} + ~task() { + if (handle) + handle.destroy(); + } + + std::coroutine_handle<> handle; + }; + + class await_counter : public std::suspend_always { + public: + template + void await_suspend(std::coroutine_handle handle) noexcept { + handle.promise().count++; + } + }; + + static task coro_task(int v) { + int a = v; + co_await await_counter{}; + a++; + std::cout << a << "\n"; + a++; + std::cout << a << "\n"; + a++; + std::cout << a << "\n"; + co_await await_counter{}; + a++; + std::cout << a << "\n"; + a++; + std::cout << a << "\n"; + } + + int main() { + task t = coro_task(43); + t.resume(); + t.resume(); + t.resume(); + return 0; + } + +In debug mode (`O0` + `g`), the printing result would be: + +.. parsed-literal:: + + {__resume_fn = 0x4019e0 , __destroy_fn = 0x402000 , __promise = {count = 1}, v = 43, a = 45, __coro_index = 1 '\001', struct_std__suspend_always_0 = {__int_8 = 0 '\000'}, + class_await_counter_1 = {__int_8 = 0 '\000'}, class_await_counter_2 = {__int_8 = 0 '\000'}, struct_std__suspend_always_3 = {__int_8 = 0 '\000'}} + +In the above, the values of `v` and `a` are clearly expressed, as are the +temporary values for `await_counter` (`class_await_counter_1` and +`class_await_counter_2`) and `std::suspend_always` ( +`struct_std__suspend_always_0` and `struct_std__suspend_always_3`). The index +of the current suspension point of the coroutine is emitted as `__coro_index`. +In the above example, the `__coro_index` value of `1` means the coroutine +stopped at the second suspend point (Note that `__coro_index` is zero indexed) +which is the first `co_await await_counter{};` in `coro_task`. Note that the +first initial suspend point is the compiler generated +`co_await promise_type::initial_suspend()`. + +However, when optimizations are enabled, the printed result changes drastically: + +.. parsed-literal:: + + {__resume_fn = 0x401280 , __destroy_fn = 0x401390 , __promise = {count = 1}, __int_32_0 = 43, __coro_index = 1 '\001'} + +Unused values are optimized out, as well as the name of the local variable `a`. +The only information remained is the value of a 32 bit integer. In this simple +case, it seems to be pretty clear that `__int_32_0` represents `a`. However, it +is not true. + +An important note with optimization is that the value of a variable may not +properly express the intended value in the source code. For example: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + static task coro_task(int v) { + int a = v; + co_await await_counter{}; + a++; // __int_32_0 is 43 here + std::cout << a << "\n"; + a++; // __int_32_0 is still 43 here + std::cout << a << "\n"; + a++; // __int_32_0 is still 43 here! + std::cout << a << "\n"; + co_await await_counter{}; + a++; // __int_32_0 is still 43 here!! + std::cout << a << "\n"; + a++; // Why is __int_32_0 still 43 here? + std::cout << a << "\n"; + } + +When debugging step-by-step, the value of `__int_32_0` seemingly does not +change, despite being frequently incremented, and instead is always `43`. +While this might be surprising, this is a result of the optimizer recognizing +that it can eliminate most of the load/store operations. The above code gets +optimized to the equivalent of: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + static task coro_task(int v) { + store v to __int_32_0 in the frame + co_await await_counter{}; + a = load __int_32_0 + std::cout << a+1 << "\n"; + std::cout << a+2 << "\n"; + std::cout << a+3 << "\n"; + co_await await_counter{}; + a = load __int_32_0 + std::cout << a+4 << "\n"; + std::cout << a+5 << "\n"; + } + +It should now be obvious why the value of `__int_32_0` remains unchanged +throughout the function. It is important to recognize that `__int_32_0` +does not directly correspond to `a`, but is instead a variable generated +to assist the compiler in code generation. The variables in an optimized +coroutine frame should not be thought of as directly representing the +variables in the C++ source. + +Get the suspended points +======================== + +An important requirement for debugging coroutines is to understand suspended +points, which are where the coroutine is currently suspended and awaiting. + +For simple cases like the above, inspecting the value of the `__coro_index` +variable in the coroutine frame works well. + +However, it is not quite so simple in really complex situations. In these +cases, it is necessary to use the coroutine libraries to insert the +line-number. + +For example: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + // For all the promise_type we want: + class promise_type { + ... + + unsigned line_number = 0xffffffff; + }; + + #include + + // For all the awaiter types we need: + class awaiter { + ... + template + void await_suspend(std::coroutine_handle handle, + std::source_location sl = std::source_location::current()) { + ... + handle.promise().line_number = sl.line(); + } + }; + +In this case, we use `std::source_location` to store the line number of the +await inside the `promise_type`. Since we can locate the coroutine function +from the address of the coroutine, we can identify suspended points this way +as well. + +The downside here is that this comes at the price of additional runtime cost. +This is consistent with the C++ philosophy of "Pay for what you use". + +Get the asynchronous stack +========================== + +Another important requirement to debug a coroutine is to print the asynchronous +stack to identify the asynchronous caller of the coroutine. As many +implementations of coroutine types store `std::coroutine_handle<> continuation` +in the promise type, identifying the caller should be trivial. The +`continuation` is typically the awaiting coroutine for the current coroutine. +That is, the asynchronous parent. + +Since the `promise_type` is obtainable from the address of a coroutine and +contains the corresponding continuation (which itself is a coroutine with a +`promise_type`), it should be trivial to print the entire asynchronous stack. + +This logic should be quite easily captured in a debugger script. + +Get the living coroutines +========================= + +Another useful task when debugging coroutines is to enumerate the list of +living coroutines, which is often done with threads. While technically +possible, this task is not recommended in production code as it is costly at +runtime. One such solution is to store the list of currently running coroutines +in a collection: + +.. code-block:: c++ + + inline std::unordered_set lived_coroutines; + // For all promise_type we want to record + class promise_type { + public: + promise_type() { + // Note to avoid data races + lived_coroutines.insert(std::coroutine_handle::from_promise(*this).address()); + } + ~promise_type() { + // Note to avoid data races + lived_coroutines.erase(std::coroutine_handle::from_promise(*this).address()); + } + }; + +In the above code snippet, we save the address of every lived coroutine in the +`lived_coroutines` `unordered_set`. As before, once we know the address of the +coroutine we can derive the function, `promise_type`, and other members of the +frame. Thus, we could print the list of lived coroutines from that collection. + +Please note that the above is expensive from a storage perspective, and requires +some level of locking (not pictured) on the collection to prevent data races. Index: clang/docs/index.rst =================================================================== --- clang/docs/index.rst +++ clang/docs/index.rst @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ HLSLSupport ThinLTO APINotes + DebuggingCoroutines CommandGuide/index FAQ