> On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:54 AM, Greg Clayton <clayb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:35 AM, Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 19, 2018, at 9:44 AM, Greg Clayton via lldb-dev
>>> <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 19, 2018, at 6:51 AM, Zdenek Prikryl via lldb-dev
>>>> <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi lldb developers,
>>>>
>>>> I've been researching using lldb + gdbserver stub that is based on Harvard
>>>> architecture with multiple address spaces (one program, multiple data).
>>>> The commonly adopted approach is that everything is mapped to a single
>>>> "virtual" address space. The stub reads/writes from/to the right memory
>>>> based on the "virtual" addresses. But I'd like to use real addresses with
>>>> address space id instead. So, I've started looking at what has to be
>>>> changed.
>>>>
>>>> I've enhanced read/write commands (e.g. memory read --as <id> ...) and RSP
>>>> protocol (new packet) so that the stub can read/write properly. That
>>>> wasn't that complicated.
>>>
>>> It might be nice to add a new RSP protocol packet that asks for the address
>>> space names/values:
>>>
>>> qGetAddressSpaces
>>>
>>> which would return something like:
>>>
>>> 1:text;2:data1,3:data2
>>>
>>> or it would return not supported. If we get a valid return value from
>>> qGetAddressSpaces, then it enables the use of the new packet you added
>>> above. Else it defaults to using the old memory read functions.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now I've hit an issue with expressions (LLVMUserExpression.cpp) and local
>>>> variables (DWARFExpressions.cpp). There is a lot of memory read/write
>>>> functions that take just an address argument. Is the only way to go to
>>>> patch all these calls? Has anybody solved it differently?
>>>
>>> My quick take is that any APIs that take just a lldb::addr_t would need to
>>> take something like:
>>>
>>> struct SpaceAddress {
>>> static constexpr uint32_t kNoSpace = 0;
>>> lldb::addr_t addr;
>>> uint32_t space;
>>> };
>>>
>>
>> I'm curious why you are suggesting another kind of address, rather than
>> adding this functionality to Address? When you actually go to resolve an
>> Address in a target with a process you should have everything you need to
>> know to give it the proper space. Then fixing the expression evaluator (and
>> anything else that needs fixing) would be a matter of consistently using
>> Address rather than lldb::addr_t. That seems general goodness, since
>> converting to an lldb::addr_t loses information.
>
> If we accept lldb_private::Address in all APIs that take a lldb::addr_t
> currently, then we need to always be able to get to the target in case we
> need to add code to resolve the address everywhere. I am thinking of
> SpaceAddress as an augmented lldb::addr_t instead of a section + offset style
> address. Also, there will be addresses in the code and data that do not exist
> in actual sections. Not saying that you couldn't use lldb_private::Address. I
> am open to suggestions though. So your though it remove all API that take
> lldb::addr_t and use lldb_private::Address everywhere all the time?
It has always bugged me that we have these two ways of specifying addresses.
Are there many/any places that have to resolve an Address to a real address in
a process that don't have a Target readily available? That would surprise me.
I would much rather centralize on one way than adding a third.
Jim
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>> We would need a default value for "space" (feel free to rename) that
>>> indicates the default address space as most of our architectures would not
>>> need this support. If we added a constructor like:
>>>
>>> SpaceAddress(lldb::addr_t a) : addr(a), space(kNoSpace) {}
>>>
>>> Then all usages of the APIs that used to take just a "lldb::addr_t" would
>>> implicitly call this constructor and continue to act as needed. Then we
>>> would need to allow lldb_private::Address objects to resolve to a
>>> SpaceAddress:
>>>
>>> SpaceAddress lldb_private::Address::GetSpaceAddress(Target *target) const;
>>>
>>> Since each lldb_private::Address has a section and each section knows its
>>> address space. Then the tricky part is finding all locations in the
>>> expression parser and converting those to track and use SpaceAddress. We
>>> would probably need to modify the allocate memory packets in the RSP
>>> protocol to be able to allocate memory in any address space as well.
>>>
>>> I didn't spend much time think about correct names above, so feel free to
>>> suggest alternate naming.
>>>
>>> Best advice:
>>> - make things "just work" to keep changes to a minimum and allowing
>>> lldb::addr_t to implicitly convert to a SpaceAddress easily
>>> - when modifying RSP, make sure to check for existence of new feature
>>> before enabling it
>>> - query for address space names so when we dump SpaceAddress we can show
>>> something that means something to the user. This means we would need to
>>> query the address space names from the current lldb_private::Process for
>>> display.
>>>
>>> Submitting might go easier if we break it down into chunks:
>>> 1 - add SpaceAddress and modify all needed APIs to use it
>>> 2 - add ProcessGDBRemote changes that enable this support
>>>
>>> It will be great to support this as a first class citizen within LLDB. You
>>> might ask the Hexagon folks if they have done anything in case they already
>>> support this is some shape or form.
>>>
>>> Greg Clayton
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lldb-dev mailing list
>>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
