zequanwu added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/PDB/ObjectFilePDB.cpp:176-197
+ switch (dbi_stream->getMachineType()) {
+ case PDB_Machine::Amd64:
+ spec.SetTriple("x86_64-pc-windows");
+ specs.Append(module_spec);
+ break;
+ case PDB_Machine::x86:
+ spec.SetTriple("i386-pc-windows");
----------------
labath wrote:
> zequanwu wrote:
> > labath wrote:
> > > zequanwu wrote:
> > > > labath wrote:
> > > > > Could this use the same algorithm as `ObjectFilePDB::GetArchitecture`
> > > > > ?
> > > > No. This part is the same algorithm as the part in
> > > > `ObjectFilePECOFF::GetModuleSpecifications`,
> > > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/PECOFF/ObjectFilePECOFF.cpp#L194-L215.
> > > >
> > > > The `ObjectFilePDB::GetArchitecture` is same as
> > > > `ObjectFilePECOFF::GetArchitecture`.
> > > I'm not sure this kind of consistency actually helps. For example, in
> > > `Module::MatchesModuleSpec`, module's own architecture (as provided by
> > > `ObjectFile(PECOFF)::GetArchitecture`) is compared to the one in the
> > > ModuleSpec (generally coming from
> > > `ObjectFile(PDB)::GetModuleSpecifications`.
> > >
> > > If there's any mismatch between the two ways of computing a ArchSpec,
> > > then there will be trouble, even though they are "symmetric".
> > >
> > > That said, I think we can keep this like it is in this patch, but I'd
> > > like to clean up both implementations in a another patch.
> > So, we want to refactor out the common part of
> > `ObjectFilePECOFF::GetArchitecture` and
> > `ObjectFilePDB::GetModuleSpecifications` to keep them consistent? I will do
> > it in another patch.
> >
> I'd actually say all four functions
> (ObjectFile{PECOFF,PDB}::{GetArchitecture,GetModuleSpecifications}) should
> use the same algorithm, but lets leave that for the other patch.
It's interesting that `GetArchitecture` and `GetModuleSpecifications` in
ObjectFilePECOFF currently do not have the same algorithm, but works fine.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/NativePDB/PdbIndex.cpp:42
llvm::Expected<std::unique_ptr<PdbIndex>>
-PdbIndex::create(std::unique_ptr<llvm::pdb::PDBFile> file) {
+PdbIndex::create(llvm::pdb::PDBFile *&file) {
lldbassert(file);
----------------
labath wrote:
> What's up with the reference?
Removed reference.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/NativePDB/SymbolFileNativePDB.cpp:299
std::unique_ptr<PDBFile> file_up =
loadMatchingPDBFile(m_objfile_sp->GetFileSpec().GetPath(),
m_allocator);
----------------
labath wrote:
> zequanwu wrote:
> > labath wrote:
> > > zequanwu wrote:
> > > > labath wrote:
> > > > > Instead of changing `loadMatchingPDBFile` I think we ought to change
> > > > > this to something like:
> > > > > ```
> > > > > if (auto *pdb = llvm::dyn_cast<ObjectFilePDB>(m_objfile_sp)) {
> > > > > file_up = pdb->giveMeAPDBFile();
> > > > > // PS: giveMeAPDBFile is a new pdb-specific public method on
> > > > > ObjectFilePDB
> > > > > // PS: possibly this should not return a PDBFile, but a PDBIndex
> > > > > directly -- I don't know the details but the general idea is that it
> > > > > could/should reuse the pdb parsing state that the objectfile class
> > > > > has already created
> > > > > } else
> > > > > file_up = do_the_loadMatchingPDBFile_fallback();
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason for that is that it avoids opening the pdb file twice
> > > > > (once in the object file and once here). Another reason is that I
> > > > > believe the entire `loadMatchingPDBFile` function should disappear.
> > > > > Finding the pdb file should not be the job of the symbol file class
> > > > > -- we have symbol vendors for that. However, we should keep the
> > > > > fallback for now to keep the patch small...
> > > > From what I see, it seems like PDBFile is designed to be created when
> > > > opening the pdb file. It doesn't allow copying it around.
> > > > `NativeSession` holds a unique_ptr of PDBFile and
> > > > `NativeSession::getPDBFile` returns the reference of object, so
> > > > creating unique_ptr from it is not allowed.
> > > >
> > > > I moved `loadPDBFile` to `ObjectFilePDB` as static function, so we can
> > > > move `PDBFile` easily.
> > > You don't need to copy it -- you can just have the two objects reference
> > > the same instance (stealing the PDBFile object from under ObjectFilePDB
> > > seems suboptimal). Probably the simplest way to achieve that is to change
> > > the PdbIndex class to use a raw pointer (and ObjectFilePDB to provide
> > > one). Then SymbolFilePDB can have an additional unique_ptr<PDBFile>
> > > member, which may or may not be empty (depending on whether it fetches
> > > object from ObjectFilePDB or loads it itself). Eventually, as we
> > > transition to always fetching the PDBFile from ObjectFilePDB, that member
> > > will disappear completely.
> > >
> > > Also, I wasn't expecting you to take the `giveMeAPDBFile` name literally.
> > > :) I was deliberatly using a funky name as a placeholder because I wasn't
> > > sure of how exactly this would work -- I was trying to illustrate the
> > > general concept, and not a precise implementation. If what, I said in the
> > > previous paragraph works, then a "normal" name like `GetPDBFile` should
> > > work just fine...
> > >
> > > Sorry about the confusion.
> > > Then SymbolFilePDB can have an additional unique_ptr<PDBFile> member
> > I think you meant `SymbolFileNativePDB`, but why do we need this? It
> > already has a member `unique_ptr<PDBIndex>`. I might misunderstood.
> >
> > I changed it to have `loadPDBFile` return raw pointer and `ObjectFilePDB`
> > has a raw pointer member and PdbIndex uses raw pointer.
> Yeah, but who's now responsible for deleting the PDBFile object? You just
> leak it, right?
>
> My proposal was the following:
> - ObjectFilePDB is responsible for freeing the PDBFile object that it creates
> (but it can borrow that object to the SymbolFile)
> - SymbolFileNativePDB is responsible for the object that it creates (which
> happens only when it's not borrowing the PDBFile). This is what the extra
> member is for.
> - PDBIndex is *not* responsible for freeing anything
>
> The imagined implementation was something like:
> ```
> class ObjectFilePDB {
> std::unique_ptr<PDBFile> m_file_up; // Always non-null
> PDBFile &GetPDBFile() { return *m_file_up; }
> };
> class SymbolFilePDB {
> std::unique_ptr<PDBIndex> m_pdb_index;
> std::unique_ptr<PDBFile> m_file_up; // May be null
> };
> SymbolFilePDB::CalculateAbilities() {
> ...
> PDBFile *pdb_file;
> if (loading_from_objfile)
> pdb_file = &objfile->GetPDBFile();
> else {
> m_file_up = loadMatchingPDBFile(...);
> pdb_file = m_file_up.get();
> }
> m_index = PdbIndex::Create(*pdb_file);
> }
> ```
>
> Other implementations are possible as well...
Thanks for declaration.
================
Comment at: lldb/test/Shell/ObjectFile/PDB/object.test:3
+# RUN: yaml2obj %p/Inputs/pdb.yaml -o %t.obj
+# RUN: lld-link %t.obj /debug /pdb:%t.pdb /entry:main /nodefaultlib
+# RUN: lldb-test object-file %t.pdb | FileCheck %s
----------------
labath wrote:
> zequanwu wrote:
> > labath wrote:
> > > Could we generate the pdb directly from yaml (perhaps via `llvm-pdbutil
> > > yaml2pdb`)? That way we could have a hardcoded UUID and explicit test for
> > > its parsing.
> > I noticed when I use `llvm-pdbutil pdb2yaml` to generate yaml file from pdb
> > file and then use `llvm-pdbutil yaml2pdb` to get pdb file back, the two pdb
> > files are not the same. Also using `lldb-test symbols` with the pdb created
> > from yaml file, got the error: `error: Module has no symbol vendor.` This
> > doesn't happen if I use the original pdb file.
> >
> Yeah, unfortunately it looks like pdb2yaml does not support some pdb streams
> (though I also wonder if lldb is not being too strict about the kinds of
> streams it expects). It would be nice to fix that one day.
>
> Nonetheless, the current pdb2yaml functionality seems sufficient for the
> purposes of this particular test, so I think we should use that here. The
> hardcoded uuid here may be brittle as it depends on the exact algorithm that
> lld uses to compute it.
I switched to use yaml2pdb. The uuid is swapped byte order when reading from
pdb.
================
Comment at: lldb/test/Shell/ObjectFile/PDB/symbol.test:4
+# RUN: lld-link %t.obj /debug /pdb:%t.pdb /entry:main /nodefaultlib
+# RUN: lldb-test symbols %t.pdb | FileCheck %s
+
----------------
labath wrote:
> zequanwu wrote:
> > labath wrote:
> > > This is SymbolFile functionality, so it'd be better placed in
> > > `Shell/SymbolFile/PDB`
> > I put it here because I saw `symbol.yaml` which uses `lldb-test symbols`
> > exists in `Shell/ObjectFile/PECOFF`. And the folder `Shell/SymbolFile`
> > seems to contain tests for SymbolFile plugins.
> The fact that that test uses the `symbols` function of lldb-test is not
> ideal, but the functionality it tests (symbol table parsing) is definitely an
> ObjectFile feature. OTOH, Parsing of Types, CompileUnits and Functions
> definitely falls into the SymbolFile purview. Given that the other test can
> be moved to yaml2pdb, and you don't have to worry about duplicating inputs,
> I'd move this test to the SymbolFile folder
>
> That said, I'm not sure what is it that you actually wanted to test here.
> What's being done here that is not covered by the `load-pdb.test`? You could
> potentially add -o "b main" (to force symfile parsing) and -o "image dump
> symfile" to the other test if you wanted to check that the pdb can actually
> be parsed this way.
I'll put the testing of symfile parsing in `load-pdb.cpp`.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89812/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89812
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
