public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug debug/97599] [8/9/10/11 Regression] missing unspecified_parameters DIE in DWARF for functions with variable arguments Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 07:41:11 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-97599-4-rYcavZNSda@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-97599-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97599 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I think the main confusion is as to how we represent IPA clones in debug, namely making them have an abstract origin to the cloned function even though their signatures do not match. In reality we're creating a new function [entry] with a different signature. I think a better representation for a function clone would be <1><ab>: Abbrev Number: 10 (DW_TAG_subprogram) DW_AT_artificial : 1 <clone signature> <2> DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine <original function DIE> plus the parameter mapping. Thus represent a clone as what it really is, a new function calling the old one with appropriate parameters. This doesn't work for the function splitting tail though (IIRC we had another PR about that). The question is whether we need to have any debug for the formal parameters of clones or if it is enough to appropriately specify the DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine (that's where users would expect breakpoints as well). So in the end I don't believe the current situation is "fixable" since we cannot distinguish clones from abstract vs. concrete instances in the DWARF itself. And the abstract origin we have on the tree level is just misleading.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-28 7:41 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-10-27 17:09 [Bug debug/97599] New: " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-10-27 17:09 ` [Bug debug/97599] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-10-28 7:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2020-10-28 7:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-10-28 9:10 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-10-28 9:16 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-10-28 9:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-10-28 10:00 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-11-14 8:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-11-25 11:56 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-11-25 17:18 ` [Bug debug/97599] [8/9 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-04-20 23:30 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-04-22 16:48 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-04-22 17:07 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-97599-4-rYcavZNSda@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).