* [Bug default/27213] New: alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed.
@ 2021-01-20 10:23 jakub at redhat dot com
2021-01-20 15:46 ` [Bug default/27213] " mark at klomp dot org
` (8 more replies)
0 siblings, 9 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: jakub at redhat dot com @ 2021-01-20 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dwz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27213
Bug ID: 27213
Summary: alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL'
failed.
Product: dwz
Version: unspecified
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: default
Assignee: nobody at sourceware dot org
Reporter: jakub at redhat dot com
CC: dwz at sourceware dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 13137
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13137&action=edit
tarball with g++ gcc ar nm built with DWARF5 .debug_info and .debug_line
for i in g++ gcc ar nm; do cp -af $i.orig $i; done; rm -f gcc.dwz; ./dwz -m
gcc.dwz g++ gcc ar nm
dwz: dwz.c:15837: alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed.
Aborted (core dumped)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug default/27213] alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed.
2021-01-20 10:23 [Bug default/27213] New: alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed jakub at redhat dot com
@ 2021-01-20 15:46 ` mark at klomp dot org
2021-01-20 20:03 ` jakub at redhat dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: mark at klomp dot org @ 2021-01-20 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dwz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27213
Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mark at klomp dot org
--- Comment #1 from Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> ---
It doesn't help with this case. But reviewing the code I found that there was
at least one place where we didn't hash the DW_FORM_implicit_const value in
checksum_die meaning that two DIEs which only differed in an attribute (which
we didn't already handle specially) using a DW_FORM_implicit_const with a
different value (maybe a DW_AT_byte_size) could possibly hash to the same
value.
diff --git a/dwz.c b/dwz.c
index 308bcba..e556dfb 100644
--- a/dwz.c
+++ b/dwz.c
@@ -3580,7 +3580,11 @@ checksum_die (DSO *dso, dw_cu_ref cu, dw_die_ref
top_die, dw_die_ref die)
ptr += ptr_size;
break;
case DW_FORM_flag_present:
+ break;
case DW_FORM_implicit_const:
+ if (! handled)
+ die->u.p1.die_hash
+ = iterative_hash_object (t->values[i], die->u.p1.die_hash);
break;
case DW_FORM_flag:
case DW_FORM_data1:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug default/27213] alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed.
2021-01-20 10:23 [Bug default/27213] New: alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed jakub at redhat dot com
2021-01-20 15:46 ` [Bug default/27213] " mark at klomp dot org
@ 2021-01-20 20:03 ` jakub at redhat dot com
2021-01-20 20:13 ` jakub at redhat dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: jakub at redhat dot com @ 2021-01-20 20:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dwz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27213
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com> ---
Apparently the #27212 fix also fixes the Assertion failure.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug default/27213] alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed.
2021-01-20 10:23 [Bug default/27213] New: alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed jakub at redhat dot com
2021-01-20 15:46 ` [Bug default/27213] " mark at klomp dot org
2021-01-20 20:03 ` jakub at redhat dot com
@ 2021-01-20 20:13 ` jakub at redhat dot com
2021-01-20 20:22 ` jakub at redhat dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: jakub at redhat dot com @ 2021-01-20 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dwz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27213
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #1)
> It doesn't help with this case. But reviewing the code I found that there
> was at least one place where we didn't hash the DW_FORM_implicit_const value
> in checksum_die meaning that two DIEs which only differed in an attribute
> (which we didn't already handle specially) using a DW_FORM_implicit_const
> with a different value (maybe a DW_AT_byte_size) could possibly hash to the
> same value.
>
> diff --git a/dwz.c b/dwz.c
> index 308bcba..e556dfb 100644
> --- a/dwz.c
> +++ b/dwz.c
> @@ -3580,7 +3580,11 @@ checksum_die (DSO *dso, dw_cu_ref cu, dw_die_ref
> top_die, dw_die_ref die)
> ptr += ptr_size;
> break;
> case DW_FORM_flag_present:
> + break;
> case DW_FORM_implicit_const:
> + if (! handled)
> + die->u.p1.die_hash
> + = iterative_hash_object (t->values[i], die->u.p1.die_hash);
> break;
> case DW_FORM_flag:
> case DW_FORM_data1:
As for this patch, I agree that something should be done about it,
but wonder if it shouldn't be
if (!handled && die->die_ck_state != CK_BAD)
{
handled = true;
die->u.p1.die_hash
= iterative_hash_object (t->values[i], die->u.p1.die_hash);
}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug default/27213] alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed.
2021-01-20 10:23 [Bug default/27213] New: alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed jakub at redhat dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-01-20 20:13 ` jakub at redhat dot com
@ 2021-01-20 20:22 ` jakub at redhat dot com
2021-01-20 20:34 ` jakub at redhat dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: jakub at redhat dot com @ 2021-01-20 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dwz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27213
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com> ---
Another thing I'm worried about, where in die_eq_1 we compare the
DW_FORM_implicit_const values?
I wonder about:
case DW_FORM_flag_present:
break;
case DW_FORM_implicit_const:
if ((!ignore_locus || old_ptr1)
&& t1->values[i] != t2->values[j])
FAIL;
break;
in die_eq_1.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug default/27213] alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed.
2021-01-20 10:23 [Bug default/27213] New: alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed jakub at redhat dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-01-20 20:22 ` jakub at redhat dot com
@ 2021-01-20 20:34 ` jakub at redhat dot com
2021-01-20 20:48 ` mark at klomp dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: jakub at redhat dot com @ 2021-01-20 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dwz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27213
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com> ---
So:
diff --git a/dwz.c b/dwz.c
index 308bcba..a6ea5ec 100644
--- a/dwz.c
+++ b/dwz.c
@@ -3580,7 +3580,14 @@ checksum_die (DSO *dso, dw_cu_ref cu, dw_die_ref
top_die, dw_die_ref die)
ptr += ptr_size;
break;
case DW_FORM_flag_present:
+ break;
case DW_FORM_implicit_const:
+ if (!handled && die->die_ck_state != CK_BAD)
+ {
+ handled = true;
+ die->u.p1.die_hash
+ = iterative_hash_object (t->values[i], die->u.p1.die_hash);
+ }
break;
case DW_FORM_flag:
case DW_FORM_data1:
@@ -4837,7 +4844,11 @@ die_eq_1 (dw_cu_ref cu1, dw_cu_ref cu2,
ptr2 += ptr_size;
break;
case DW_FORM_flag_present:
+ break;
case DW_FORM_implicit_const:
+ if ((!ignore_locus || old_ptr1)
+ && t1->values[i] != t2->values[j])
+ FAIL;
break;
case DW_FORM_flag:
case DW_FORM_data1:
@@ -10456,19 +10467,18 @@ build_abbrevs_for_die (htab_t h, dw_cu_ref cu,
dw_die_ref die,
case DW_FORM_data4: value = read_32 (ptr); break;
case DW_FORM_data8: value = read_64 (ptr); break;
case DW_FORM_udata: value = read_uleb128 (ptr); break;
- case DW_FORM_implicit_const: break;
+ case DW_FORM_implicit_const:
+ value = reft->values[i];
+ break;
default:
error (0, 0, "Unhandled %s for %s",
get_DW_FORM_str (form),
get_DW_AT_str (reft->attr[i].attr));
return 1;
}
- /* Note that the value is only used for calculating the
- DIE size and possibly change form. Doesn't change the
- implicit_const from or value. */
+ value = line_htab_lookup (refcu, value);
if (form != DW_FORM_implicit_const)
{
- value = line_htab_lookup (refcu, value);
if (value <= 0xff)
{
form = DW_FORM_data1;
@@ -10488,7 +10498,7 @@ build_abbrevs_for_die (htab_t h, dw_cu_ref cu,
dw_die_ref die,
t->attr[j].attr = reft->attr[i].attr;
t->attr[j].form = form;
if (form == DW_FORM_implicit_const)
- t->values[j] = reft->values[i];
+ t->values[j] = value;
j++;
continue;
}
@@ -12088,10 +12098,8 @@ write_die (unsigned char *ptr, dw_cu_ref cu,
dw_die_ref die,
update = true;
break;
case DW_FORM_implicit_const:
- /* Negative means, already transformed. */
- if (reft->values[i] >= 0)
- update = true;
- value = reft->values[i];
+ /* DW_FORM_implicit_const should have been updated
+ already when computing abbrevs. */
break;
default: abort ();
}
@@ -12104,9 +12112,6 @@ write_die (unsigned char *ptr, dw_cu_ref cu, dw_die_ref
die,
case DW_FORM_data2: write_16 (ptr, value); break;
case DW_FORM_data4: write_32 (ptr, value); break;
case DW_FORM_udata: write_uleb128 (ptr, value); break;
- case DW_FORM_implicit_const:
- reft->values[i] = -value; /* Note, negated. */
- break;
default: abort ();
}
}
as the full patch?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug default/27213] alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed.
2021-01-20 10:23 [Bug default/27213] New: alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed jakub at redhat dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-01-20 20:34 ` jakub at redhat dot com
@ 2021-01-20 20:48 ` mark at klomp dot org
2021-01-20 20:53 ` mark at klomp dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: mark at klomp dot org @ 2021-01-20 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dwz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27213
--- Comment #6 from Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> As for this patch, I agree that something should be done about it,
> but wonder if it shouldn't be
> if (!handled && die->die_ck_state != CK_BAD)
> {
> handled = true;
> die->u.p1.die_hash
> = iterative_hash_object (t->values[i], die->u.p1.die_hash);
> }
Yes, checking for CK_BAD is correct. Thanks.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug default/27213] alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed.
2021-01-20 10:23 [Bug default/27213] New: alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed jakub at redhat dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2021-01-20 20:48 ` mark at klomp dot org
@ 2021-01-20 20:53 ` mark at klomp dot org
2021-01-21 7:58 ` jakub at redhat dot com
2021-02-08 15:52 ` mark at klomp dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: mark at klomp dot org @ 2021-01-20 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dwz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27213
--- Comment #7 from Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Another thing I'm worried about, where in die_eq_1 we compare the
> DW_FORM_implicit_const values?
> I wonder about:
> case DW_FORM_flag_present:
> break;
> case DW_FORM_implicit_const:
> if ((!ignore_locus || old_ptr1)
> && t1->values[i] != t2->values[j])
> FAIL;
> break;
> in die_eq_1.
Yes, I was just looking at that one. It would make checksum_die and die_eq
agree with each other. Looks correct.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug default/27213] alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed.
2021-01-20 10:23 [Bug default/27213] New: alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed jakub at redhat dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2021-01-20 20:53 ` mark at klomp dot org
@ 2021-01-21 7:58 ` jakub at redhat dot com
2021-02-08 15:52 ` mark at klomp dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: jakub at redhat dot com @ 2021-01-21 7:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dwz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27213
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com> ---
author Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Thu, 21 Jan 2021 07:43:08 +0000 (08:43 +0100)
committer Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Thu, 21 Jan 2021 07:43:08 +0000 (08:43 +0100)
commit 47af8da7c8533924e96d1dbd97625b6a4dc35855
tree 4a924fd99e9ee98dcc4125836309dff06de39b19 tree
parent 40d5efd4edc52a7d2ed02f8400a9beb129053271 commit | diff
Assorted DW_FORM_implicit_const fixes
The problem is I think that write_abbrev is always called before write_info,
and the remapping of the DW_AT_decl_file/DW_AT_call_file DW_FORM_implicit_const
is done only in write_die which is called either recursively or from
write_info/write_types. Which means the DW_FORM_implicit_const value encoded
in the abbrev was never updated.
Other fixes include hashing the DW_FORM_implicit_const value in checksum_die
and more importantly comparing the values in die_eq_1.
2021-01-21 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR dwz/27212
PR dwz/27213
* dwz.c (checksum_die): For DW_FORM_implicit_const hash t->values[i].
(die_eq_1): For DW_FORM_implicit_const compare t?->values[?].
(build_abbrevs_for_die): For DW_FORM_implicit_const on DW_AT_*_file
call line_htab_lookup too and store the result into t->values[j].
Otherwise, handle even file ids larger than 32-bit.
(write_die): For DW_FORM_implicit_const on DW_AT_*_file just j++
and continue, don't call line_htab_lookup nor adjust anything.
Simplify.
(alt_clear_dups): Fix function comment.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug default/27213] alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed.
2021-01-20 10:23 [Bug default/27213] New: alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed jakub at redhat dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2021-01-21 7:58 ` jakub at redhat dot com
@ 2021-02-08 15:52 ` mark at klomp dot org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: mark at klomp dot org @ 2021-02-08 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dwz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27213
Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #9 from Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> ---
Fixed by the commit from comment #8.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-02-08 15:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-01-20 10:23 [Bug default/27213] New: alt_clear_dups: Assertion `child->die_dup == NULL' failed jakub at redhat dot com
2021-01-20 15:46 ` [Bug default/27213] " mark at klomp dot org
2021-01-20 20:03 ` jakub at redhat dot com
2021-01-20 20:13 ` jakub at redhat dot com
2021-01-20 20:22 ` jakub at redhat dot com
2021-01-20 20:34 ` jakub at redhat dot com
2021-01-20 20:48 ` mark at klomp dot org
2021-01-20 20:53 ` mark at klomp dot org
2021-01-21 7:58 ` jakub at redhat dot com
2021-02-08 15:52 ` mark at klomp dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).