Re: [PATCH v4 4/8] diagnostics: Support obtaining source code lines from generated data buffers
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 04:08:47PM -0400, Lewis Hyatt wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 3:46 PM David Malcolm wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2023-08-15 at 14:15 -0400, Lewis Hyatt wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 12:15:15PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2023-08-09 at 18:14 -0400, Lewis Hyatt wrote: > > > > > This patch enhances location_get_source_line(), which is the > > > > > primary > > > > > interface provided by the diagnostics infrastructure to obtain > > > > > the line of > > > > > source code corresponding to a given location, so that it > > > > > understands > > > > > generated data locations in addition to normal file-based > > > > > locations. This > > > > > involves changing the argument to location_get_source_line() from > > > > > a plain > > > > > file name, to a source_id object that can represent either type > > > > > of location. > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/input.cc b/gcc/input.cc > > > > > index 9377020b460..790279d4273 100644 > > > > > --- a/gcc/input.cc > > > > > +++ b/gcc/input.cc > > > > > @@ -207,6 +207,28 @@ private: > > > > >void maybe_grow (); > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > +/* This is the implementation of cache_data_source for generated > > > > > + data that is already in memory. */ > > > > > +class data_cache_slot final : public cache_data_source > > > > > > > > It occurred to me: why are we caching accessing a buffer that's > > > > already > > > > in memory - but we're also caching the line-splitting information, > > > > and > > > > providing the line-splitting algorithm with a consistent interface > > > > to > > > > the data, right? > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, for the current _Pragma use case, multi-line buffers are not > > > going to > > > be common, but they can occur. I was mainly motivated by the > > > consistent > > > interface, and by the assumption that the overhead is not critical > > > given a > > > diagnostic is being issued. > > > > (nods) > > > > > > > > > [...snip...] > > > > > > > > > @@ -397,6 +434,15 @@ diagnostics_file_cache_forcibly_evict_file > > > > > (const char *file_path) > > > > >global_dc->m_file_cache->forcibly_evict_file (file_path); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > +void > > > > > +diagnostics_file_cache_forcibly_evict_data (const char *data, > > > > > + unsigned int > > > > > data_len) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + if (!global_dc->m_file_cache) > > > > > +return; > > > > > + global_dc->m_file_cache->forcibly_evict_data (data, data_len); > > > > > > > > Maybe we should rename diagnostic_context's m_file_cache to > > > > m_source_cache? (and class file_cache for that matter?) But if > > > > so, > > > > that can/should be a followup/separate patch. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we should. Believe it or not, I was trying to minimize the size > > > of the > > > patch :) > > > > :) > > > > Thanks for splitting it up, BTW. > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -912,26 +1000,22 @@ cache_data_source::read_line_num (size_t > > > > > line_num, > > > > > If the function fails, a NULL char_span is returned. */ > > > > > > > > > > char_span > > > > > -location_get_source_line (const char *file_path, int line) > > > > > +location_get_source_line (source_id src, int line) > > > > > { > > > > > - const char *buffer = NULL; > > > > > - ssize_t len; > > > > > - > > > > > - if (line == 0) > > > > > -return char_span (NULL, 0); > > > > > - > > > > > - if (file_path == NULL) > > > > > -return char_span (NULL, 0); > > > > > + const char_span fail (nullptr, 0); > > > > > + if (!src || line <= 0) > > > > > +return fail; > > > > > > > > Looking at source_id's operator bool, are there effectively three > > > > kinds > > > > of source_id? > > > > > > > > (a) file names > > > > (b) generated buffer > > > > (c) NULL == m_filename_or_buffer > > > > > > > > What does (c) mean? Is it a "something's gone wrong/error" state? > > > > Or > > > > is this more a special-case of (a)? (in that the m_len for such a > > > > case > > > > would be zero) > > > > > > > > Should source_id's 2-param ctor have an assert that the ptr is non- > > > > NULL? > > > > > > > > [...snip...] > > > > > > > > The patch is OK for trunk as-is, but note the question about the > > > > source_id ctor above. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. (c) has the same meaning as a NULL file name currently does, > > > so a > > > default-constructed source_id is not an in-memory buffer, but is > > > rather a > > > NULL filename. linemap_add() for instance, will interpret a NULL > > > filename > > > for an LC_LEAVE map, as a request to copy it from the natural values > > > being > > > returned to. I think the source_id constructor needs to accept a NULL > > > filename to remain backwards compatible. With the current design of > > > source_id, it is safe always to change a 'const char*' file name > > > argument to > > > a source_id argument instead; it will work just how it did before > > >
Re: [PATCH v4 4/8] diagnostics: Support obtaining source code lines from generated data buffers
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 3:46 PM David Malcolm wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-08-15 at 14:15 -0400, Lewis Hyatt wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 12:15:15PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > > On Wed, 2023-08-09 at 18:14 -0400, Lewis Hyatt wrote: > > > > This patch enhances location_get_source_line(), which is the > > > > primary > > > > interface provided by the diagnostics infrastructure to obtain > > > > the line of > > > > source code corresponding to a given location, so that it > > > > understands > > > > generated data locations in addition to normal file-based > > > > locations. This > > > > involves changing the argument to location_get_source_line() from > > > > a plain > > > > file name, to a source_id object that can represent either type > > > > of location. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/input.cc b/gcc/input.cc > > > > index 9377020b460..790279d4273 100644 > > > > --- a/gcc/input.cc > > > > +++ b/gcc/input.cc > > > > @@ -207,6 +207,28 @@ private: > > > >void maybe_grow (); > > > > }; > > > > > > > > +/* This is the implementation of cache_data_source for generated > > > > + data that is already in memory. */ > > > > +class data_cache_slot final : public cache_data_source > > > > > > It occurred to me: why are we caching accessing a buffer that's > > > already > > > in memory - but we're also caching the line-splitting information, > > > and > > > providing the line-splitting algorithm with a consistent interface > > > to > > > the data, right? > > > > > > > Yeah, for the current _Pragma use case, multi-line buffers are not > > going to > > be common, but they can occur. I was mainly motivated by the > > consistent > > interface, and by the assumption that the overhead is not critical > > given a > > diagnostic is being issued. > > (nods) > > > > > > [...snip...] > > > > > > > @@ -397,6 +434,15 @@ diagnostics_file_cache_forcibly_evict_file > > > > (const char *file_path) > > > >global_dc->m_file_cache->forcibly_evict_file (file_path); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +void > > > > +diagnostics_file_cache_forcibly_evict_data (const char *data, > > > > + unsigned int > > > > data_len) > > > > +{ > > > > + if (!global_dc->m_file_cache) > > > > +return; > > > > + global_dc->m_file_cache->forcibly_evict_data (data, data_len); > > > > > > Maybe we should rename diagnostic_context's m_file_cache to > > > m_source_cache? (and class file_cache for that matter?) But if > > > so, > > > that can/should be a followup/separate patch. > > > > > > > Yes, we should. Believe it or not, I was trying to minimize the size > > of the > > patch :) > > :) > > Thanks for splitting it up, BTW. > > [...] > > > > > > > > > @@ -912,26 +1000,22 @@ cache_data_source::read_line_num (size_t > > > > line_num, > > > > If the function fails, a NULL char_span is returned. */ > > > > > > > > char_span > > > > -location_get_source_line (const char *file_path, int line) > > > > +location_get_source_line (source_id src, int line) > > > > { > > > > - const char *buffer = NULL; > > > > - ssize_t len; > > > > - > > > > - if (line == 0) > > > > -return char_span (NULL, 0); > > > > - > > > > - if (file_path == NULL) > > > > -return char_span (NULL, 0); > > > > + const char_span fail (nullptr, 0); > > > > + if (!src || line <= 0) > > > > +return fail; > > > > > > Looking at source_id's operator bool, are there effectively three > > > kinds > > > of source_id? > > > > > > (a) file names > > > (b) generated buffer > > > (c) NULL == m_filename_or_buffer > > > > > > What does (c) mean? Is it a "something's gone wrong/error" state? > > > Or > > > is this more a special-case of (a)? (in that the m_len for such a > > > case > > > would be zero) > > > > > > Should source_id's 2-param ctor have an assert that the ptr is non- > > > NULL? > > > > > > [...snip...] > > > > > > The patch is OK for trunk as-is, but note the question about the > > > source_id ctor above. > > > > > > > Thanks. (c) has the same meaning as a NULL file name currently does, > > so a > > default-constructed source_id is not an in-memory buffer, but is > > rather a > > NULL filename. linemap_add() for instance, will interpret a NULL > > filename > > for an LC_LEAVE map, as a request to copy it from the natural values > > being > > returned to. I think the source_id constructor needs to accept a NULL > > filename to remain backwards compatible. With the current design of > > source_id, it is safe always to change a 'const char*' file name > > argument to > > a source_id argument instead; it will work just how it did before > > because it > > has an implicit constructor. But if the constructor would assert on a > > non-NULL pointer, that would necessitate changing all call sites that > > currently expect they can pass a NULL pointer there. (For example, > > there are > > several calls to _cpp_do_file_change() within libcpp that take > > advantage of > > being able to pass a
Re: [PATCH v4 4/8] diagnostics: Support obtaining source code lines from generated data buffers
On Tue, 2023-08-15 at 14:15 -0400, Lewis Hyatt wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 12:15:15PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-08-09 at 18:14 -0400, Lewis Hyatt wrote: > > > This patch enhances location_get_source_line(), which is the > > > primary > > > interface provided by the diagnostics infrastructure to obtain > > > the line of > > > source code corresponding to a given location, so that it > > > understands > > > generated data locations in addition to normal file-based > > > locations. This > > > involves changing the argument to location_get_source_line() from > > > a plain > > > file name, to a source_id object that can represent either type > > > of location. > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/input.cc b/gcc/input.cc > > > index 9377020b460..790279d4273 100644 > > > --- a/gcc/input.cc > > > +++ b/gcc/input.cc > > > @@ -207,6 +207,28 @@ private: > > > void maybe_grow (); > > > }; > > > > > > +/* This is the implementation of cache_data_source for generated > > > + data that is already in memory. */ > > > +class data_cache_slot final : public cache_data_source > > > > It occurred to me: why are we caching accessing a buffer that's > > already > > in memory - but we're also caching the line-splitting information, > > and > > providing the line-splitting algorithm with a consistent interface > > to > > the data, right? > > > > Yeah, for the current _Pragma use case, multi-line buffers are not > going to > be common, but they can occur. I was mainly motivated by the > consistent > interface, and by the assumption that the overhead is not critical > given a > diagnostic is being issued. (nods) > > > [...snip...] > > > > > @@ -397,6 +434,15 @@ diagnostics_file_cache_forcibly_evict_file > > > (const char *file_path) > > > global_dc->m_file_cache->forcibly_evict_file (file_path); > > > } > > > > > > +void > > > +diagnostics_file_cache_forcibly_evict_data (const char *data, > > > + unsigned int > > > data_len) > > > +{ > > > + if (!global_dc->m_file_cache) > > > + return; > > > + global_dc->m_file_cache->forcibly_evict_data (data, data_len); > > > > Maybe we should rename diagnostic_context's m_file_cache to > > m_source_cache? (and class file_cache for that matter?) But if > > so, > > that can/should be a followup/separate patch. > > > > Yes, we should. Believe it or not, I was trying to minimize the size > of the > patch :) :) Thanks for splitting it up, BTW. [...] > > > > > @@ -912,26 +1000,22 @@ cache_data_source::read_line_num (size_t > > > line_num, > > > If the function fails, a NULL char_span is returned. */ > > > > > > char_span > > > -location_get_source_line (const char *file_path, int line) > > > +location_get_source_line (source_id src, int line) > > > { > > > - const char *buffer = NULL; > > > - ssize_t len; > > > - > > > - if (line == 0) > > > - return char_span (NULL, 0); > > > - > > > - if (file_path == NULL) > > > - return char_span (NULL, 0); > > > + const char_span fail (nullptr, 0); > > > + if (!src || line <= 0) > > > + return fail; > > > > Looking at source_id's operator bool, are there effectively three > > kinds > > of source_id? > > > > (a) file names > > (b) generated buffer > > (c) NULL == m_filename_or_buffer > > > > What does (c) mean? Is it a "something's gone wrong/error" state? > > Or > > is this more a special-case of (a)? (in that the m_len for such a > > case > > would be zero) > > > > Should source_id's 2-param ctor have an assert that the ptr is non- > > NULL? > > > > [...snip...] > > > > The patch is OK for trunk as-is, but note the question about the > > source_id ctor above. > > > > Thanks. (c) has the same meaning as a NULL file name currently does, > so a > default-constructed source_id is not an in-memory buffer, but is > rather a > NULL filename. linemap_add() for instance, will interpret a NULL > filename > for an LC_LEAVE map, as a request to copy it from the natural values > being > returned to. I think the source_id constructor needs to accept a NULL > filename to remain backwards compatible. With the current design of > source_id, it is safe always to change a 'const char*' file name > argument to > a source_id argument instead; it will work just how it did before > because it > has an implicit constructor. But if the constructor would assert on a > non-NULL pointer, that would necessitate changing all call sites that > currently expect they can pass a NULL pointer there. (For example, > there are > several calls to _cpp_do_file_change() within libcpp that take > advantage of > being able to pass a NULL filename to linemap_add.) Yes, it's OK for this ctor to accept NULL; source_id (const char *filename = nullptr) and I see you added the default arg. I was referring to this ctor: source_id (const char *buffer, unsigned buffer_len) Is it ever OK for "buffer" to be NULL in this 2-param ctor, or can we assert
Re: [PATCH v4 4/8] diagnostics: Support obtaining source code lines from generated data buffers
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 12:15:15PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > On Wed, 2023-08-09 at 18:14 -0400, Lewis Hyatt wrote: > > This patch enhances location_get_source_line(), which is the primary > > interface provided by the diagnostics infrastructure to obtain the line of > > source code corresponding to a given location, so that it understands > > generated data locations in addition to normal file-based locations. This > > involves changing the argument to location_get_source_line() from a plain > > file name, to a source_id object that can represent either type of location. > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * input.cc (class data_cache_slot): New class. > > (file_cache::lookup_data): New function. > > (diagnostics_file_cache_forcibly_evict_data): New function. > > (file_cache::forcibly_evict_data): New function. > > (file_cache::evicted_cache_tab_entry): Generalize (via a template) > > to work for both file_cache_slot and data_cache_slot. > > (file_cache::add_file): Adapt for new interface to > > evicted_cache_tab_entry. > > (file_cache::add_data): New function. > > (data_cache_slot::create): New function. > > (file_cache::file_cache): Support the new m_data_slots member. > > (file_cache::~file_cache): Likewise. > > (file_cache::lookup_or_add_data): New function. > > (file_cache::lookup_or_add): New function that calls either > > lookup_or_add_data or lookup_or_add_file as appropriate. > > (location_get_source_line): Change the FILE_PATH argument to a > > source_id SRC, and use it to support obtaining source lines from > > generated data as well as from files. > > (location_compute_display_column): Support generated data using the > > new features of location_get_source_line. > > (dump_location_info): Likewise. > > * input.h (location_get_source_line): Adjust prototype. Add a new > > convenience overload taking an expanded_location. > > (class cache_data_source): Declare. > > (class data_cache_slot): Declare. > > (class file_cache): Declare new members. > > (diagnostics_file_cache_forcibly_evict_data): Declare. > > --- > > gcc/input.cc | 171 --- > > gcc/input.h | 23 +-- > > 2 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/gcc/input.cc b/gcc/input.cc > > index 9377020b460..790279d4273 100644 > > --- a/gcc/input.cc > > +++ b/gcc/input.cc > > @@ -207,6 +207,28 @@ private: > >void maybe_grow (); > > }; > > > > +/* This is the implementation of cache_data_source for generated > > + data that is already in memory. */ > > +class data_cache_slot final : public cache_data_source > > It occurred to me: why are we caching accessing a buffer that's already > in memory - but we're also caching the line-splitting information, and > providing the line-splitting algorithm with a consistent interface to > the data, right? > Yeah, for the current _Pragma use case, multi-line buffers are not going to be common, but they can occur. I was mainly motivated by the consistent interface, and by the assumption that the overhead is not critical given a diagnostic is being issued. > [...snip...] > > > @@ -397,6 +434,15 @@ diagnostics_file_cache_forcibly_evict_file (const char > > *file_path) > >global_dc->m_file_cache->forcibly_evict_file (file_path); > > } > > > > +void > > +diagnostics_file_cache_forcibly_evict_data (const char *data, > > + unsigned int data_len) > > +{ > > + if (!global_dc->m_file_cache) > > +return; > > + global_dc->m_file_cache->forcibly_evict_data (data, data_len); > > Maybe we should rename diagnostic_context's m_file_cache to > m_source_cache? (and class file_cache for that matter?) But if so, > that can/should be a followup/separate patch. > Yes, we should. Believe it or not, I was trying to minimize the size of the patch :) So I didn't make such changes, but they will make things more clear. > [...snip...] > > > @@ -525,10 +582,22 @@ file_cache_slot::create (const > > file_cache::input_context _context, > >return true; > > } > > > > +void > > +data_cache_slot::create (const char *data, unsigned int data_len, > > +unsigned int highest_use_count) > > +{ > > + reset (); > > + on_create (highest_use_count + 1, > > +total_lines_num (source_id {data, data_len})); > > + m_data_begin = data; > > + m_data_end = data + data_len; > > +} > > + > > /* file_cache's ctor. */ > > > > file_cache::file_cache () > > -: m_file_slots (new file_cache_slot[num_file_slots]) > > + : m_file_slots (new file_cache_slot[num_file_slots]), > > +m_data_slots (new data_cache_slot[num_file_slots]) > > Should "num_file_slots" be renamed to "num_slots"? > > I assume you're using the same value for both kinds of
Re: [PATCH v4 4/8] diagnostics: Support obtaining source code lines from generated data buffers
On Wed, 2023-08-09 at 18:14 -0400, Lewis Hyatt wrote: > This patch enhances location_get_source_line(), which is the primary > interface provided by the diagnostics infrastructure to obtain the line of > source code corresponding to a given location, so that it understands > generated data locations in addition to normal file-based locations. This > involves changing the argument to location_get_source_line() from a plain > file name, to a source_id object that can represent either type of location. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * input.cc (class data_cache_slot): New class. > (file_cache::lookup_data): New function. > (diagnostics_file_cache_forcibly_evict_data): New function. > (file_cache::forcibly_evict_data): New function. > (file_cache::evicted_cache_tab_entry): Generalize (via a template) > to work for both file_cache_slot and data_cache_slot. > (file_cache::add_file): Adapt for new interface to > evicted_cache_tab_entry. > (file_cache::add_data): New function. > (data_cache_slot::create): New function. > (file_cache::file_cache): Support the new m_data_slots member. > (file_cache::~file_cache): Likewise. > (file_cache::lookup_or_add_data): New function. > (file_cache::lookup_or_add): New function that calls either > lookup_or_add_data or lookup_or_add_file as appropriate. > (location_get_source_line): Change the FILE_PATH argument to a > source_id SRC, and use it to support obtaining source lines from > generated data as well as from files. > (location_compute_display_column): Support generated data using the > new features of location_get_source_line. > (dump_location_info): Likewise. > * input.h (location_get_source_line): Adjust prototype. Add a new > convenience overload taking an expanded_location. > (class cache_data_source): Declare. > (class data_cache_slot): Declare. > (class file_cache): Declare new members. > (diagnostics_file_cache_forcibly_evict_data): Declare. > --- > gcc/input.cc | 171 --- > gcc/input.h | 23 +-- > 2 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/input.cc b/gcc/input.cc > index 9377020b460..790279d4273 100644 > --- a/gcc/input.cc > +++ b/gcc/input.cc > @@ -207,6 +207,28 @@ private: > void maybe_grow (); > }; > > +/* This is the implementation of cache_data_source for generated > + data that is already in memory. */ > +class data_cache_slot final : public cache_data_source It occurred to me: why are we caching accessing a buffer that's already in memory - but we're also caching the line-splitting information, and providing the line-splitting algorithm with a consistent interface to the data, right? [...snip...] > @@ -397,6 +434,15 @@ diagnostics_file_cache_forcibly_evict_file (const char > *file_path) > global_dc->m_file_cache->forcibly_evict_file (file_path); > } > > +void > +diagnostics_file_cache_forcibly_evict_data (const char *data, > + unsigned int data_len) > +{ > + if (!global_dc->m_file_cache) > + return; > + global_dc->m_file_cache->forcibly_evict_data (data, data_len); Maybe we should rename diagnostic_context's m_file_cache to m_source_cache? (and class file_cache for that matter?) But if so, that can/should be a followup/separate patch. [...snip...] > @@ -525,10 +582,22 @@ file_cache_slot::create (const > file_cache::input_context _context, > return true; > } > > +void > +data_cache_slot::create (const char *data, unsigned int data_len, > + unsigned int highest_use_count) > +{ > + reset (); > + on_create (highest_use_count + 1, > + total_lines_num (source_id {data, data_len})); > + m_data_begin = data; > + m_data_end = data + data_len; > +} > + > /* file_cache's ctor. */ > > file_cache::file_cache () > -: m_file_slots (new file_cache_slot[num_file_slots]) > + : m_file_slots (new file_cache_slot[num_file_slots]), > + m_data_slots (new data_cache_slot[num_file_slots]) Should "num_file_slots" be renamed to "num_slots"? I assume you're using the same value for both kinds of slot since the file_cache::evicted_cache_tab_entry template uses this. I suppose the number could be passed in as an argument to that function if we wanted to have different sizes for the two kinds, but I don't think it matters. [...snip...] > @@ -912,26 +1000,22 @@ cache_data_source::read_line_num (size_t line_num, > If the function fails, a NULL char_span is returned. */ > > char_span > -location_get_source_line (const char *file_path, int line) > +location_get_source_line (source_id src, int line) > { > - const char *buffer = NULL; > - ssize_t len; > - > - if (line == 0) > - return char_span (NULL, 0); > - > - if (file_path == NULL) > - return