From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>,
Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@ericsson.com>,
GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>,
Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Implement pahole-like 'ptype /o' option
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 18:40:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87lgi7x00t.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d15b3ba6-9a33-32b4-7541-51232279ed0b@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Tue, 12 Dec 2017 18:14:38 +0000")
Thanks for looking into this.
On Tuesday, December 12 2017, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 12/12/2017 06:19 AM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
>
>> BTW, a little status update.
>>
>> Apparently the patch can't handle bitfields very well. I've found a few
>> cases where the bitfield handling gets confused, printing wrong
>> offsets/sizes/holes. Bitfields can be extremely complex to deal with
>> when it comes to offsets...
>>
>> I spent hours trying to improve the patch, managed to make some
>> progress, but there are still corner cases to fix. For example, the
>> patch doesn't deal well with this case:
>>
>> struct aa {
>> /* 0 | 1 */ char aa;
>> /* 1: 1 | 1 */ unsigned char a : 7;
>> /* 1:15 | 4 */ int b : 10;
>> } /* total size: 4 bytes */
>>
>> In this case, the bitfield "b" would be combined with the previous
>> bitfield "a", like pahole reports:
>>
>> struct aa {
>> char aa; /* 0 1 */
>> unsigned char a:7; /* 1: 1 1 */
>>
>> /* Bitfield combined with previous fields */
>>
>> int b:10; /* 0: 7 4 */
>> }
>>
>> Confusing... I'm not sure why pahole reports b's offset to be 0.
>
> 0 seems right to me. The bitfield's type is int, with size 4,
> and it lives at byte offset 0:
>
> <2><53>: Abbrev Number: 5 (DW_TAG_member)
> <54> DW_AT_name : (indirect string, offset: 0x4ae): b
> <58> DW_AT_decl_file : 1
> <59> DW_AT_decl_line : 7
> <5a> DW_AT_type : <0x71>
> <5e> DW_AT_byte_size : 4
> <5f> DW_AT_bit_size : 10
> <60> DW_AT_bit_offset : 7
> <61> DW_AT_data_member_location: 0 <<<
>
> Replacing the 0 with 1, like:
>
> int b:10; /* 1: 7 4 */
>
> would look incorrect to me, because that'd make '(char*)&aa + 1 + 4'
> (address of containing object + byte offset + byte size) overshoot the
> size of the containing object.
OK. The GDB patch is printing "1:15" because the offset is calculated
as:
(bitpos + offset_bitpos) / TARGET_CHAR_BIT
In this particular case, offset_bitpos is zero because we're not inside
an inner struct, so we don't care about it. bitpos is TYPE_FIELD_BITPOS
(type, field_idx), which is 15 in this case, because sizeof (aa.aa) +
bitsof (aa.a) = 15. When we divide it by TARGET_CHAR_BIT, we get 1. It
seems using TYPE_FIELD_BITPOS is not reliable when dealing with
bitfields.
So there is something I'm not accounting here.
> What is that number after ":" in bitfields supposed to mean in
> pahole's output (and I assume that that's what you're trying
> to emulate)? We're missing documentation for that.
Yeah. I tried to find documentation on the output, but couldn't.
Yesterday I was reading pahole's code. From what I understand, it is
the number of bits left in the object.
> It seems like it's supposed to mean the number of bits left in the
> containing anonymous object (i.e., in the 4 bytes of the declared
> int)? Then "0:7" seems right, given:
>
> sizeof (int) * 8 - bitsof(aa.a) - bitsof(aa.a) - bits(aa.b)
> => sizeof (int) * 8 - 7 - 10
> => 7
I guess you meant:
sizeof (int) * 8 - bitsof (aa.a) - bitsof(aa.b)
Right?
But yeah, it makes sense when you consider that the first bitfield got
"promoted" from "unsigned char" to "int". I haven't figured out a way
to keep track of these type changes in order to calculate the right
offsets, remaining space and holes.
> It took me a while to get to this conclusion (and writing a lot
> of text that I ended up deleting... :-P), because I originally
> assumed that this was meant to be the field's bit offset.
>
>>
>> Also, the patch doesn't understand cases like this:
>>
>> struct tyu
>> {
>> unsigned int a1 : 1;
>> unsigned int a2 : 3;
>> unsigned int a9 : 23;
>> /* PROBLEM HAPPENS HERE */
>> unsigned char a0 : 2;
>> uint64_t a3;
>> unsigned int a4 : 5;
>> uint64_t a5 : 3;
>> };
>>
>> In this case, we're switching types in the middle of the bitfield. The
>> bitfield "unsigned char a0" would be combined with the bitfields above
>> it, but the patch doesn't know that:
>>
>> struct tyu {
>> /* 0:31 | 4 */ unsigned int a1 : 1;
>> /* 0:28 | 4 */ unsigned int a2 : 3;
>> /* 0: 5 | 4 */ unsigned int a9 : 23;
>> /* 3: 6 | 1 */ unsigned char a0 : 2;
>> /* XXX 3-bit hole */
>> /* XXX 4-byte hole */
>> /* 8 | 8 */ uint64_t a3;
>> /* 16:27 | 4 */ unsigned int a4 : 5;
>> /* 16:56 | 8 */ uint64_t a5 : 3;
>> } /* total size: 24 bytes */
>>
>> Whereas pahole reports:
>>
>> struct tyu {
>> unsigned int a1:1; /* 0:31 4 */
>> unsigned int a2:3; /* 0:28 4 */
>> unsigned int a9:23; /* 0: 5 4 */
>>
>> /* XXX 253 bits hole, try to pack */
>> /* Bitfield combined with next fields */
>>
>> unsigned char a0:2; /* 3: 3 1 */
>>
>> /* XXX 6 bits hole, try to pack */
>> /* XXX 4 bytes hole, try to pack */
>>
>> uint64_t a3; /* 8 8 */
>> unsigned int a4:5; /* 16:27 4 */
>> uint64_t a5:3; /* 16:56 8 */
>> };
>>
>> Hm, TBH pahole itself seems a bit confused here, saying there is a
>> 253-bit hole...
>
> A 253-bit hole does look odd.
Yes. I haven't checked all the offsets too; there may be
inconsistencies.
>>
>>
>> Anyway, long story short, this is much more complex that I thought it
>> would be (TM). I am extremely tired right now and can't continue, but I
>> intend to resume work tomorrow morning. But I'd like to leave a few
>> options on the table:
>>
>> 1) Remove the patch from the 8.1 wishlist, which will unblock the
>> branching.
>>
>> 2) Remove the bitfield handling from the patch, leaving it
>> feature-incomplete, but working.
>>
>> 3) Push the patch with these known limitations, document them, mark them
>> as KFAIL in the testcase, and open a bug to fix them (I personally
>> wouldn't like this).
>>
>> 4) Wait more time until these issues are resolved.
>>
>
> Joel said that we'd re-evaluate Wednesday, so there's still some time.
OK, I'll keep trying here.
Thanks,
--
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-12 18:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-21 16:07 [PATCH] " Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-11-21 16:16 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-11-21 16:50 ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-11-21 17:00 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-11-21 19:14 ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-11-26 19:27 ` Tom Tromey
2017-11-27 19:54 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-11-27 22:20 ` Tom Tromey
2017-11-28 0:39 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-11-28 21:21 ` [PATCH v2] " Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-11-29 3:28 ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-12-04 15:03 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-04 15:41 ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-12-04 16:47 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-08 21:32 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-11 15:43 ` Simon Marchi
2017-12-11 18:59 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-11 20:45 ` Simon Marchi
2017-12-11 21:07 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-11 22:42 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-11 22:50 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-11 23:46 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-12 0:25 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-12 0:52 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-12 1:25 ` Simon Marchi
2017-12-12 15:50 ` John Baldwin
2017-12-12 17:04 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-11 19:58 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] Implement pahole-like 'ptype /o' option (and do some code reorg) Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-11 19:58 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] Reorganize code to handle TYPE_CODE_{STRUCT,UNION} on 'c_type_print_base' Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-11 20:55 ` Simon Marchi
2017-12-11 23:05 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-11 19:58 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] Implement pahole-like 'ptype /o' option Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-11 21:50 ` Simon Marchi
2017-12-11 23:24 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-12 1:32 ` Simon Marchi
2017-12-12 6:19 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-12 18:14 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-12 18:40 ` Sergio Durigan Junior [this message]
2017-12-12 20:12 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-11 23:43 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] Implement pahole-like 'ptype /o' option (and do some code reorg) Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-11 23:44 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] Reorganize code to handle TYPE_CODE_{STRUCT,UNION} on 'c_type_print_base' Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-11 23:44 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] Implement pahole-like 'ptype /o' option Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-12 0:27 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-12 0:29 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-12 1:59 ` Simon Marchi
2017-12-12 3:39 ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-12-13 3:17 ` [PATCH v5 0/2] Implement pahole-like 'ptype /o' option (and do some code reorg) Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-13 3:17 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] Reorganize code to handle TYPE_CODE_{STRUCT,UNION} on 'c_type_print_base' Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-13 3:17 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] Implement pahole-like 'ptype /o' option Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-13 4:50 ` Simon Marchi
2017-12-13 16:42 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-13 16:17 ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-12-13 17:14 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-13 16:19 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-13 17:13 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-13 20:36 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-13 21:22 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-13 21:30 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-13 21:34 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-13 16:20 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-13 17:41 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-14 2:48 ` [PATCH v6 0/2] Implement pahole-like 'ptype /o' option (and do some code reorg) Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-14 2:48 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] Implement pahole-like 'ptype /o' option Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-14 14:19 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-14 20:31 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-14 14:50 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-14 20:29 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-14 16:30 ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-12-14 2:48 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] Reorganize code to handle TYPE_CODE_{STRUCT,UNION} on 'c_type_print_base' Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-15 1:12 ` [PATCH v7 0/2] Implement pahole-like 'ptype /o' option (and do some code reorg) Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-15 1:12 ` [PATCH v7 1/2] Reorganize code to handle TYPE_CODE_{STRUCT,UNION} on 'c_type_print_base' Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-15 1:13 ` [PATCH v7 2/2] Implement pahole-like 'ptype /o' option Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-15 17:24 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-15 20:04 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2017-12-15 20:11 ` [PATCH v7 0/2] Implement pahole-like 'ptype /o' option (and do some code reorg) Sergio Durigan Junior
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=87lgi7x00t.fsf@redhat.com \
--to=sergiodj@redhat.com \
--cc=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=simon.marchi@ericsson.com \
--cc=simon.marchi@polymtl.ca \
--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).