From: Manfred <mx2927@gmail.com>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, GCC <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 15:07:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <03b08ef2-e765-5dc2-f390-00c31e74c5ec@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6394368bca446f08119118a0f88a30b7@polymtl.ca>
On 02/07/2018 02:44 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2018-02-07 02:21, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> As the person who, eons ago, wrote a bunch of the the GDB code for
>> this C++
>> ABI support, and as someone who helped with DWARF support in both GDB and
>> GCC, let me try to propose a useful path forward (in the hopes that
>> someone
>> will say "that's horrible, do it this <clearly better way> instead")
>>
>> Here are the constraints i believe we are working with.
>>
>> 1. GDB should work with multiple DWARF producers and multiple C++
>> compilers
>> implementing the C++ ABI
>> 2. There is no canonical demangled format for the C++ ABI
>> 3. There is no canoncial target demangler you can say everyone should use
>> (and even if there was, you don't want to avoid debugging working because
>> someone chose not to)
>> 4. You don't want to slow down GDB if you can avoid it
>> 5. Despite them all implementation the same ABI, it's still possible to
>> distinguish the producers by the producer/compiler in the dwarf info.
>>
>> Given all that:
>>
>> GDB has ABI hooks that tell it what to do for various C++ ABIs. This
>> is how
>> it knows to call the right demangler for gcc v3's abi vs gcc v2's abi.
>> and
>> handle various differences between them.
>>
>> See gdb/cp-abi.h
>>
>> The IMHO, obvious thing to do here is: Handle the resulting demangler
>> differences with 1 or more new C++ ABI hooks.
>> Or, introduce C++ debuginfo producer hooks that the C++ ABI hooks use if
>> folks want it to be separate.
>>
>> Once the producer is detected, fill in the hooks with a set of functions
>> that does the right thing.
>>
>> I imagine this would also clean up a bundle of hacks in various parts of
>> gdb trying to handle these differences anyway (which is where a lot of
>> the
>> multiple symbol lookups/etc that are often slow come from.
>> If we just detected and said "this is gcc 6, it behaves like this", we
>> wouldn't need to do that)
>>
>> In case you are worried, you will discover this is how a bunch of
>> stuff is
>> done and already contains a ball of hacks.
>>
>> Using hooks would be, IMHO, a significant improvement.
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Thanks for chiming in.
>
> This addresses the issue of how to do good software design in GDB to
> support different producers cleanly, but I think we have some issues
> even before that, like how to support g++ 7.3 and up. I'll try to
> summarize the issue quickly. It's now possible to end up with two
> templated classes with the same name that differ only by the signedness
> of their non-type template parameter. One is Foo<int N> and the other
> is Foo<unsigned int N> (the 10 is unsigned). Until 7.3, g++ would
> generate names like Foo<10> for the former and names like Foo<10u> for
> the later (in the DW_AT_name attribute of the classes' DIEs). Since
> 7.3, it produces Foo<10> for both.
>
> When GDB wants to know the run time type of an object, it fetches the
> pointer to its vtable, does a symbol lookup to get the linkage name and
> demangles it, which gives a string like "vtable for Foo<10>" or "vtable
> for Foo<10u>". It strips the "vtable for " and uses the remainder to do
> a type lookup. Since g++ 7.3, you can see that doing a type lookup for
> Foo<10> may find the wrong type, and doing a lookup for Foo<10u> won't
> find anything.
>
> So the problem here is how to uniquely identify those two classes when
> we are doing this run-time type finding operation (and probably in other
> cases too).
>
> Simon
Hi all,
In the perspective of "type identity", the way I see it the issue has a
few parts:
1) How GCC compiles such templates
2) How GCC emits debugging information via -g
3) How such information is interpreted (and merged with the compiled
code) by GDB
Regarding 1) and 2), IMHO I think that there should be a one-to-one
relationship between the compiled code output and debug info:
This means that if GCC compiles such templates into two different
classes[1], it should generate two different type identifiers.
Conversely, if it compiles the templates into the same class, then a
single identifier should be emitted for the single class compiled.
(This goes besides the point of what the standard dictates[2])
If I understand it right, currently the issue is that gcc emits two
types with the same debug identifier.
Regarding 3), I think that after 1) and 2) are set up, GDB should be
able to find the correct type definition (using the most appropriate
design choice).
Hope this helps,
Manfred
[1] According to the findings of Simon, this appears to be the case with
clang, older GCC, and current GCC master. Do I understand this right?
[2] About handling both templates instantiation as a single class, I
think that if GCC wants to emit a single class, then its argument type
instantiation should be well-definined,i.e. independent of the order of
declaration - see the findings from Simon earlier in this thread where
you could get the program output either -10 or 4294967286 depending on
which declaration would come first.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-07 15:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-03 3:17 Roman Popov
2018-02-03 3:57 ` carl hansen
2018-02-03 4:54 ` Simon Marchi
2018-02-03 5:02 ` Roman Popov
2018-02-03 6:43 ` Roman Popov
2018-02-03 14:20 ` Paul Smith
2018-02-03 17:18 ` Roman Popov
2018-02-03 18:36 ` Manfred
2018-02-04 5:02 ` Simon Marchi
2018-02-04 17:09 ` Manfred
2018-02-04 19:17 ` Martin Sebor
2018-02-05 5:07 ` Simon Marchi
2018-02-05 16:45 ` Martin Sebor
2018-02-05 16:59 ` Simon Marchi
2018-02-05 17:44 ` Roman Popov
2018-02-05 20:08 ` Jonathan Wakely
2018-02-05 20:10 ` Roman Popov
2018-02-05 20:12 ` Jonathan Wakely
2018-02-05 20:17 ` Roman Popov
2018-02-06 3:52 ` Martin Sebor
2018-02-07 7:21 ` Daniel Berlin
2018-02-07 13:44 ` Simon Marchi
2018-02-07 15:07 ` Manfred [this message]
2018-02-07 15:16 ` Jonathan Wakely
2018-02-07 16:19 ` Manfred
2018-02-07 16:26 ` Michael Matz
2018-02-07 16:43 ` Simon Marchi
2018-02-07 16:51 ` Jonathan Wakely
2018-02-07 17:03 ` Simon Marchi
2018-02-07 17:08 ` Jonathan Wakely
2018-02-07 17:20 ` Simon Marchi
2018-02-07 17:30 ` Jonathan Wakely
2018-02-07 18:28 ` Simon Marchi
2018-02-08 11:26 ` Michael Matz
2018-02-08 14:05 ` Paul Smith
2018-02-08 14:07 ` Jonathan Wakely
2018-02-07 17:31 ` Marc Glisse
2018-02-07 17:04 ` Daniel Berlin
2018-02-07 17:11 ` Daniel Berlin
2018-02-07 22:00 ` Nathan Sidwell
2018-02-07 20:29 ` Tom Tromey
2018-02-08 15:05 ` Richard Biener
2018-03-01 20:18 ` Roman Popov
2018-03-01 20:26 ` Andrew Pinski
2018-03-01 21:03 ` Jason Merrill
2018-03-02 23:06 ` Roman Popov
2018-03-03 4:01 ` Roman Popov
2018-03-04 4:28 ` Daniel Berlin
2018-02-05 11:05 ` Jonathan Wakely
2018-02-07 15:19 ` Jonathan Wakely
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=03b08ef2-e765-5dc2-f390-00c31e74c5ec@gmail.com \
--to=mx2927@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.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: 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).