public inbox for libabigail@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "gprocida+abigail at google dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: libabigail@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug default/26297] New: Possible misinterpretation of DW_AT_declaration via DW_AT_specification
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 18:27:00 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-26297-9487@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> (raw)

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26297

            Bug ID: 26297
           Summary: Possible misinterpretation of DW_AT_declaration via
                    DW_AT_specification
           Product: libabigail
           Version: unspecified
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: default
          Assignee: dodji at redhat dot com
          Reporter: gprocida+abigail at google dot com
                CC: libabigail at sourceware dot org
  Target Milestone: ---

Hi Dodji.

I was looking into libabigail's emission of anonymous declaration-only unions
and starting comparing what I saw there against what dwarfdump and pahole -aAE
reported. The pahole output didn't look entirely trustworthy.

dwarfdump tests/data/test-read-dwarf/libtest23.so

shows a DW_TAG_union with a DW_AT_declaration yes attribute. I thought "how's
that?" but spotted that it was referred to via a DW_AT_specification attribute
from another declaration.

A little web search found the discussion

https://gdb-patches.sourceware.narkive.com/PLB1ixbx/dw-at-specification-long-ago-gdb-change

which concluded that DW_AT_declaration found by following a DW_AT_specification
should be ignored.

I coded a naive change that plumbed through a "followed_spec" boolean through
bits of the DWARF reader and the results were quite startling.

Please take a look at this and let me know your thoughts.

https://github.com/myxoid/libabigail/commit/fb3b7302a9923b8ee7ca279cc9492207140d886d

It may be useful to switch some tests to --type-id-style hash and turn on
annotation to better understand the changes. 

Regards,
Giuliano.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

             reply	other threads:[~2020-07-23 18:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-23 18:27 gprocida+abigail at google dot com [this message]
2020-07-23 20:26 ` [Bug default/26297] " gprocida+abigail at google dot com
2020-07-23 23:05 ` mark at klomp dot org
2020-07-24  8:30 ` gprocida+abigail at google dot com
2020-07-24 12:45 ` gprocida+abigail at google dot com
2020-07-24 14:32 ` gprocida+abigail at google dot com
2020-08-06 16:48 ` dodji at redhat dot com

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-26297-9487@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org \
    --cc=libabigail@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).