labath added a comment.
In D82378#2109137 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82378#2109137>, @jankratochvil
wrote:
> I do not like much this approach but it fixes this case. I would prefer
> checking `DW_AT_producer` together with `-grecord-gcc-switches`.
> I was trying GCC and clang and all the IMO relevant options and I can get
> either no `.eh_frame`/`.debug_frame` or an asynchronous one.:
>
> (set -ex;rm -rf udir;mkdir udir;cd udir;rm -f *;for e in
> -f{,no-}exceptions;do for u in -f{,no-}asynchronous-unwind-tables;do for a in
> -f{,no-}unwind-tables;do for c in clang gcc;do echo 'int main(void){return
> 0;}'|$c $e $a $u -o $c$e$u$a -x c -;done;done;done;done;for i in $(sha256sum
> *|sort|awk '{x[$1]=$2}END{for (y in x) print x[y]}');do nm $i|grep -w
> main;readelf -wf $i;done) 2>&1|less
>
>
> So I think current compilers no longer produce non-asynchronous unwind tables
> (that should be verified in the gcc+clang code which I did not) and a simple
> compiler version check in `DW_AT_producer` would be enough (even without
> checking compilation options).
I would be the first person to jump with joy of all compilers produced unwind
info which is correct at every location, but I'm afraid we're just not there
yet. The simplest way to disprove that is to look at the calls to __stdcall
functions:
$ bin/clang -m32 -x c - -o - -S <<<"__stdcall int e(int); void f() { e(47);
}" -O3 -fasynchronous-unwind-tables
...
f: # @f
.cfi_startproc
# %bb.0: # %entry
subl $12, %esp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
movl $47, (%esp)
calll e
# .cfi_def_cfa_offset 8 <=== THIS IS MISSING
addl $8, %esp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 4
retl
...
Clang does not correctly describe the fact that the __stdcall function pops its
arguments, so unwind will be incorrect immediately upon return from the
function. Gcc handles this correctly, though I don't guarantee that it doesn't
miss some other corner case. Now this situation is not actually handled by
lldb's "augmenter", so the example somewhat shaky, but it does show that there
are gaps in clang/llvm modelling of unwind info.
As for the DW_AT_producer idea, the main gotcha I see there is that
eh/debug_frame is supposed to be usable even without the rest of the debug
info. Now, we could treat DW_AT_producer as optional and fall back to some
default behavior in case it's not present -- that would mean that the unwind
sections are still usable independently, but the need for a fallback makes the
idea less appealing.
The other problem with that is that we would actually have to gather
information about which compilers report the unwind info correctly. I think
gathering that information would be very worthwhile, but what I would do with
that data is just make a note of the releases which started producing
reasonable epilogue info, and when those releases reach a certain age (5
years?), just delete the code to support them.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D82378/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D82378
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
