This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 02/10] type: add c99 variable length array support
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Sanimir Agovic <sanimir dot agovic at intel dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:00:29 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] type: add c99 variable length array support
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1382366424-21010-1-git-send-email-sanimir dot agovic at intel dot com> <1382366424-21010-3-git-send-email-sanimir dot agovic at intel dot com>
>>>>> "Sanimir" == Sanimir Agovic <sanimir.agovic@intel.com> writes:
Sanimir> The dwarf standard allow certain attributes to be expressed as
Sanimir> dwarf expressions rather than constants. For instance
Sanimir> upper-/lowerbound attributes. In case of a c99 variable length
Sanimir> array the upperbound is a dynamic attribute.
Sanimir> +int
Sanimir> +dwarf2_locexpr_baton_eval (const struct dwarf2_locexpr_baton *dlbaton,
Sanimir> + CORE_ADDR addr, CORE_ADDR *valp)
Need an introductory comment. It can just say "See dwarf2loc.h.", since
you put the real comment there.
Sanimir> + switch (ctx->location)
Sanimir> + {
Sanimir> + case DWARF_VALUE_REGISTER:
Sanimir> + *valp = dwarf_expr_read_reg (&baton, dwarf_expr_fetch_address (ctx, 0));
Sanimir> + break;
Sanimir> + case DWARF_VALUE_MEMORY:
Sanimir> + *valp = dwarf_expr_fetch_address (ctx, 0);
Sanimir> + break;
Sanimir> + }
It seems that something should be done for other DWARF_VALUE_* results
here.
Sanimir> +static struct dwarf2_locexpr_baton* attr_to_locexprbaton
Sanimir> +(const struct attribute *, struct dwarf2_cu *);
Sanimir> +
Sanimir> +static struct dwarf2_locexpr_baton* attr_to_locexprbaton_1
Sanimir> +(const struct attribute *, struct dwarf2_cu *, const gdb_byte *additional_data,
Sanimir> + int extra_size);
Sanimir> +
Sanimir> +static int attr_to_dwarf2_prop
Sanimir> +(struct die_info *, const struct attribute *, struct dwarf2_cu *,
Sanimir> + struct dwarf2_prop *);
In cases like this we usually indent the subsequent lines a bit, like:
static int attr_to_dwarf2_prop
(struct die_info *, const struct attribute *, struct dwarf2_cu *,
struct dwarf2_prop *);
However in this case I think it may be preferable to rearrange the
functions so that forward declarations are not needed. What do you
think?
Sanimir> +static struct dwarf2_locexpr_baton*
Sanimir> +attr_to_locexprbaton (const struct attribute *attribute, struct dwarf2_cu *cu)
Sanimir> +{
Sanimir> + return attr_to_locexprbaton_1 (attribute, cu, NULL, 0);
Sanimir> +}
If there is just a single caller (there is in this patch, but I haven't
read all the patches yet), I would remove this function and just update
the caller.
Sanimir> +static struct dwarf2_locexpr_baton*
Sanimir> +attr_to_locexprbaton_1 (const struct attribute *attribute, struct dwarf2_cu *cu,
Sanimir> + const gdb_byte *additional_data, int extra_size)
Needs an introductory comment.
Sanimir> + /* Copy the data pointer as the blocks lifetime is
Missing apostrophe: "block's".
Sanimir> + gdb_assert(baton->data != NULL);
Space before open paren.
Sanimir> +/* Parse dwarf attribute if it's a block, reference or constant and put the
Sanimir> + resulting value of the attribute into struct dwarf2_prop. */
Sanimir> +
Sanimir> +static int
Sanimir> +attr_to_dwarf2_prop (struct die_info *die, const struct attribute *attr,
Sanimir> + struct dwarf2_cu *cu,
Sanimir> + struct dwarf2_prop *prop)
I think it would be good if the introductory comment describe the return
value.
Sanimir> + else if (attr_form_is_ref (attr))
Sanimir> + {
Sanimir> + struct dwarf2_cu *target_cu = cu;
Sanimir> + struct die_info *target_die;
Sanimir> + struct attribute *target_attr;
Sanimir> + const gdb_byte append_ops[] = { DW_OP_deref };
Sanimir> +
Sanimir> + target_die = follow_die_ref (die, attr, &target_cu);
Sanimir> + target_attr = dwarf2_attr (target_die, DW_AT_location, target_cu);
Sanimir> +
Sanimir> + prop->data.locexpr =
Sanimir> + attr_to_locexprbaton_1 (target_attr, cu, append_ops,
Sanimir> + sizeof (append_ops) / sizeof (append_ops[0]));
Sanimir> + prop->kind = DWARF_LOCEXPR;
Sanimir> + gdb_assert (prop->data.locexpr != NULL);
I don't understand this hunk. Could you say why it is needed?
I wonder if this series also needs to handle DW_AT_count.
Maybe no compiler generates it.
Sanimir> + dwarf2_invalid_attrib_class_complaint(dwarf_form_name (attr->form),
Sanimir> + dwarf2_name (die, cu));
Missing space before a paren.
Sanimir> +static int
Sanimir> +has_static_range (const struct range_bounds *bounds)
Sanimir> +{
Sanimir> + return bounds->low.kind == DWARF_CONST
Sanimir> + && bounds->high.kind == DWARF_CONST;
Sanimir> +}
THis needs parens around the argument to "return" and then an
indentation fix on the second line.
Sanimir> +/* Calculates the size of a type given the upper and lower bound of a dynamic
Sanimir> + type. */
Sanimir> +
Sanimir> +static ULONGEST
Sanimir> +get_type_length (const struct type *type)
Sanimir> +{
Sanimir> + const struct type *range_type, *target_type;
Sanimir> + ULONGEST len = TYPE_LENGTH (type);
Sanimir> + LONGEST low_bound, high_bound;
Sanimir> +
Sanimir> + if (TYPE_CODE (type) != TYPE_CODE_ARRAY
Sanimir> + && TYPE_CODE (type) != TYPE_CODE_STRING)
Sanimir> + return len;
Sanimir> +
Sanimir> + range_type = TYPE_INDEX_TYPE (type);
Sanimir> +
Sanimir> + if (!has_static_range (TYPE_RANGE_DATA (range_type)))
Sanimir> + return len;
This seems like it doesn't follow what the introductory comment says it
does.
Sanimir> +
Sanimir> +static void
Sanimir> +resolve_dynamic_bounds (struct type *type, CORE_ADDR address)
Introductory comment.
Sanimir> + do {
Sanimir> + struct type *range_type = TYPE_INDEX_TYPE (ary_dim);
It's hard to know but perhaps a check_typedef is required here.
Sanimir> + ary_dim = TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (ary_dim);
Here too.
Sanimir> +struct type *
Sanimir> +resolve_dynamic_type (struct type *type, CORE_ADDR address)
Sanimir> +{
[...]
Sanimir> + if (!TYPE_OBJFILE_OWNED (ty))
Sanimir> + return type;
This seems like a bit of a wart, though I am not sure whether the
situation can actually arise.
One thing I didn't see in here is error-checking of whether resolution
makes sense.
E.g., suppose I print the value of a pointer-to-VLA. Then I move to
some other frame and "print *$".
In this situation the bounds have not been resolved -- but applying the
DWARF expression in the currently-selected frame will silently do the
wrong thing.
Tom