teemperor added a comment.
I think I'm really out of the loop how this is supposed to work. From what I
understand in the description it says we (=Clang when emitting DWARF?) is not
generating offsets, but my DWARF dump of the test clearly has offsets (but they
are clearly wrong).
0x00000033: DW_TAG_structure_type
DW_AT_APPLE_objc_complete_type (true)
DW_AT_name ("HasBitfield2")
DW_AT_byte_size (0x10)
DW_AT_decl_file ("/Users/teemperor/test/bit.m")
DW_AT_decl_line (3)
DW_AT_APPLE_runtime_class (DW_LANG_ObjC)
0x0000003c: DW_TAG_inheritance
DW_AT_type (0x0000007a "NSObject")
DW_AT_data_member_location (0x00)
0x00000042: DW_TAG_member
DW_AT_name ("x")
DW_AT_type (0x000000a6 "unsigned int")
DW_AT_decl_file ("/Users/teemperor/test/bit.m")
DW_AT_decl_line (5)
DW_AT_data_member_location (0x00)
DW_AT_accessibility (DW_ACCESS_public)
0x0000004f: DW_TAG_member
DW_AT_name ("field1")
DW_AT_type (0x000000a6 "unsigned int")
DW_AT_decl_file ("/Users/teemperor/test/bit.m")
DW_AT_decl_line (7)
DW_AT_bit_size (0x0f)
DW_AT_data_bit_offset (0x00)
DW_AT_accessibility (DW_ACCESS_public)
0x0000005d: DW_TAG_member
DW_AT_name ("field2")
DW_AT_type (0x000000a6 "unsigned int")
DW_AT_decl_file ("/Users/teemperor/test/bit.m")
DW_AT_decl_line (8)
DW_AT_bit_size (0x04)
DW_AT_data_bit_offset (0x07)
DW_AT_accessibility (DW_ACCESS_public)
0x0000006b: DW_TAG_member
DW_AT_name ("field3")
DW_AT_type (0x000000a6 "unsigned int")
DW_AT_decl_file ("/Users/teemperor/test/bit.m")
DW_AT_decl_line (9)
DW_AT_bit_size (0x04)
DW_AT_data_bit_offset (0x03)
DW_AT_accessibility (DW_ACCESS_public)
And when I change the bitfields to the sizes 2/4/4 then I actually get kinda
right looking offsets in DWARF (ignoring the fact that they miss the 32-bit
offset because of the first member) and the whole test seems to work fine from
what I can see?
0x0000004f: DW_TAG_member
DW_AT_name ("field1")
DW_AT_type (0x000000a6 "unsigned int")
DW_AT_decl_file ("/Users/teemperor/test/bit.m")
DW_AT_decl_line (7)
DW_AT_bit_size (0x02)
DW_AT_data_bit_offset (0x00)
DW_AT_accessibility (DW_ACCESS_public)
0x0000005d: DW_TAG_member
DW_AT_name ("field2")
DW_AT_type (0x000000a6 "unsigned int")
DW_AT_decl_file ("/Users/teemperor/test/bit.m")
DW_AT_decl_line (8)
DW_AT_bit_size (0x04)
DW_AT_data_bit_offset (0x02)
DW_AT_accessibility (DW_ACCESS_public)
0x0000006b: DW_TAG_member
DW_AT_name ("field3")
DW_AT_type (0x000000a6 "unsigned int")
DW_AT_decl_file ("/Users/teemperor/test/bit.m")
DW_AT_decl_line (9)
DW_AT_bit_size (0x04)
DW_AT_data_bit_offset (0x06)
DW_AT_accessibility (DW_ACCESS_public)
So, if I understand correctly with this patch we add the bitfields with the
wrong values (as they get fixed in the runtime later). Should we even do any
bitfield offset checking for them at all if it doesn't matter? There is also
some Obj-C unnamed bitfield support code below that seems to use those values,
so ignoring the fact that the values are bogus seems a bit risk...
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83433/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83433
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
