From: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
To: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>,
Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/symtab] Redo "Fix assert in set_length"
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 14:44:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2a17bb80-019d-83f1-3d36-f3073ce6a765@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87sfki19y5.fsf@tromey.com>
On 9/23/22 15:45, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
>
> Tom> The fix is to not use the CU table in a .debug_names section to construct
> Tom> all_comp_units, but instead use create_all_comp_units, and then verify the CU
> Tom> table from .debug_names. This also fixes PR25969, so remove the KFAIL.
>
> Note that create_all_comp_units was apparently renamed, so this text
> should be changed.
>
Ack.
> Part of the point of the indices is to avoid reading .debug_info until
> needed -- so scanning it should not be necessary.
Right. But the benefit of scanning the CU headers is a way to reduce
complexity of implementation. And if we do the same for .gdb_index, we
can drop the atomic on the length field.
> I assume this change
> would cause a performance drop.
>
> Checking whether performance suffers would be interesting.
> If it doesn't, I'd be more inclined to do this.
>
I did the following experiment: I build gdb with -O2 at current master.
I loaded a "usual suspect" using a cooked index:
...
$ time.sh gdb -q -batch -iex "set language c"
libxul.so-93.0-1.1.x86_64.debug
maxmem: 2817504
real: 4.21
user: 13.01
system: 0.83
...
Then using .debug_names:
...
$ time.sh gdb -q -batch -iex "set language c"
libxul.so-93.0-1.1.x86_64.debug-with-debug-names
maxmem: 267204
real: 0.86
user: 1.55
system: 0.13
...
Then I rebuild with the patch applied and tried again .debug_names:
...
$ time.sh gdb -q -batch -iex "set language c"
libxul.so-93.0-1.1.x86_64.debug-with-debug-names
maxmem: 373516
real: 0.89
user: 1.57
system: 0.13
...
Doesn't look like a noticeable performance drop to me.
> Tom> Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29572
>
> In this one I see the comment:
>
> This happens fine for CUs, but in this case it's a PU.
>
> Does .debug_names even work with partial units? I thought there was
> some hole in this area. Maybe it is just "dwz -m" that can't work with
> .debug_names? I don't recall any more.
>
Sorry, I don't recall such a problem.
> Tom> Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25969
>
> I'm not sure I understand this one, but it says:
>
> AFAIU, to fix this, we'll have to do a top-level scan of the CUs,
> and build partial symbols for CUs are not contained in any index.
>
> I think if the index is incomplete, and gdb can detect that, then it
> should simply be discarded and a full scan done. Trying to use both
> .debug_names and a partial cooked index is going to make everything more
> complicated for, IMO, very little gain.
I guess that's a reasonable approach for an incomplete per-module index.
But is it also for an incomplete per-CU index (that is, per-CU index is
present for some CUs, but missing for other CUs) ?
If so, I guess that's ok. But on openSUSE, the linked-in glibc object
always contain some dwarf, so these will then always add a CU without
per-CU index, causing incompleteness, and gdb will end up ignoring any
clang-added per-CU index (unless we build a -nostdlib exec).
Thanks,
- Tom
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-27 12:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-22 13:00 Tom de Vries
2022-09-23 13:45 ` Tom Tromey
2022-09-27 12:44 ` Tom de Vries [this message]
2023-12-05 20:59 ` Tom Tromey
2023-12-06 9:34 ` Tom de Vries
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=2a17bb80-019d-83f1-3d36-f3073ce6a765@suse.de \
--to=tdevries@suse.de \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=tom@tromey.com \
/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: link
Be 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).