[Dwarf-Discuss] DWARF and source text embedding

Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com
Wed Feb 14 00:45:23 GMT 2018

On 02/13/18 09:37, scott at scottlinder.com wrote:
> Michael, Paul,
> In the current proposal, it is not an error to have any value (including an
> empty string) in the _source attribute when the _has_source flag is 
> true, which
> allows for embedding an empty source string.
> After seeing more feedback on this point, I think you are right that the 
> extra
> flag is unnecessary. Looking at similar attributes like MD5 and how they 
> are
> handled I think it would be best to modify the proposal to remove the 
> flag and
> require the source be present on all files in the same line table if the
> attribute is present in the prologue. I still think we should have wording
> which indicates an empty string is still a valid value for embedded 
> source, and
> should not be interpreted as indicating the absence of embedded source for
> that file. This is analogous to the current MD5 attribute, as even 16 null
> bytes is a valid MD5. What are your thoughts on this approach?
> Scott

Are you saying that if any source file in embedded, that all need to be?
Including both ephemeral generated source as well as fixed include

What does it mean to have embedded source which is an empty string?
How is that different from saying that embedded source is absent?

I can imagine situations where embedding ephemeral generated source in a
DWARF debug entry can make sense.  But I have the feeling that there is
more to this in your environment than what I imagine.  Can you give a 
description of the use case in which this might be used?

> On 2018-02-01 17:20, Michael Eager wrote:
>> On 02/01/2018 12:01 PM, scott at scottlinder.com wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>> My intention was to support an empty source string; I want to be 
>>> explicit about the presence of embedded source for each file.
>> I'm not fond of the belt and suspenders approach.? If there is one
>> specifier for an attribute, there's no need for a second to say that
>> it's valid.? There's always the issue of what it means when the two
>> attributes disagree, such as when you have a flag saying that there
>> is embedded source, but the source string is empty.? Is that an error?
>>> When reading the spec I did notice places where an empty string can 
>>> indicate the absence of the attribute (e.g. DW_AT_name), but I would 
>>> prefer to be explicit here.
>>> Scott
>>> On 2018-02-01 11:19, paul.robinson at sony.com wrote:
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Dwarf-Discuss 
>>>>> [mailto:dwarf-discuss-bounces at lists.dwarfstd.org] On
>>>>> Behalf Of scott at scottlinder.com
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:05 PM
>>>>> To: dwarf-discuss at lists.dwarfstd.org
>>>>> Subject: [Dwarf-Discuss] DWARF and source text embedding
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>> I am a compiler engineer at AMD, working on tools for debugging
>>>>> online-compiled
>>>>> programs. The problem I am attempting to solve was brought up 
>>>>> previously
>>>>> in the
>>>>> DWARF Standard issue 161018.1 titled "DWARF-embedded source for
>>>>> online-compiled
>>>>> programs", and is the result of runtimes like OpenCL doing online
>>>>> compilation
>>>>> in an environment where it is not desireable (or even feasible) to 
>>>>> write
>>>>> sources to disk. In these cases, it would be useful to support 
>>>>> embedding
>>>>> the
>>>>> source directly in the resulting DWARF. I would like to propose a
>>>>> similar
>>>>> solution to the one outlined in the above issue, but without 
>>>>> structural
>>>>> changes
>>>>> to the specification.
>>>>> ====
>>>>> Add two new optional fields to the file_names prologue of the line
>>>>> table.
>>>>> Section
>>>>> Add two bullets after "5. DW_LNCT_MD5"
>>>>> 6. DW_LNCT_has_source
>>>>> ???? DW_LNCT_has_source indicates that the value is a boolean which
>>>>> affects the
>>>>> ???? interpretation of an accompanying DW_LNCT_source value. When 
>>>>> present
>>>>> there
>>>>> ???? must be an accompanying DW_LNCT_source value. When true, 
>>>>> consumers
>>>>> may use
>>>>> ???? the embedded source instead of attempting to discover the 
>>>>> source on
>>>>> disk.
>>>>> ???? When false, consumers will ignore the DW_LNCT_source value. This
>>>>> code point
>>>>> ???? is always paired with a flag form (e.g. DW_FORM_flag or
>>>>> ???? DW_FORM_flag_present).
>>>>> 7. DW_LNCT_source
>>>>> ???? DW_LNCT_source indicates that the value is a null-terminated 
>>>>> string
>>>>> which
>>>>> ???? is the original source text of the file. When present there 
>>>>> must be
>>>>> an
>>>>> ???? accompanying DW_LNCT_has_source value. The string will contain 
>>>>> the
>>>>> UTF-8
>>>>> ???? encoded source text with '\n' line endings. When the accompanying
>>>>> ???? DW_LNCT_has_source value is false, the value of DW_LNCT_source 
>>>>> will
>>>>> be the
>>>>> ???? empty string. This code point is always paired with a string form
>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>> ???? DW_FORM_string, DW_FORM_line_strp, DW_FORM_strp).
>>>> Would a zero-length string indicate something other than 
>>>> "has_source=false"?
>>>> If not, then a separate has_source flag seems redundant.
>>>> --paulr
>>>>> New type codes can be allocated for them in a backwards-compatible 
>>>>> way,
>>>>> or
>>>>> codes for these new content types can be added in the range of
>>>>> [DW_LNCT_lo_user, DW_LNCT_hi_user] to avoid changing the spec itself.
>>>>> Table 7.27:
>>>>> Add DW_LNCT_has_source? 0x6
>>>>> Add DW_LNCT_source????? 0x7
>>>>> Any DWARFv5 consumer which is unaware of this extension would continue
>>>>> to
>>>>> operate as before, ignoring the new fields. Any consumer which is 
>>>>> aware
>>>>> of the
>>>>> extension would know to check DW_LNCT_has_source for each file_name
>>>>> entry in
>>>>> order to determine whether the embedded source field (DW_LNCT_source)
>>>>> contains
>>>>> the source text of the corresponding file.
>>>>> ====
>>>>> My team and I believe this simplifies the design by removing the need
>>>>> for
>>>>> changes to the compile unit sections, and by avoiding the addition of
>>>>> multiple
>>>>> file_name_entry_formats in a single program, all without 
>>>>> sacrificing any
>>>>> information. We have a preliminary implementation in LLVM/Clang, which
>>>>> supports
>>>>> embedding source (clang -gdwarf-5 -gembed-source) and inspecting it 
>>>>> via
>>>>> llvm-dwarfdump and llvm-objdump (with the -source flag). The 
>>>>> patches are
>>>>> available at https://reviews.llvm.org/D42765 (LLVM) and
>>>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D42766 (Clang).
>>>>> I would like any and all feedback on the design, and want to see about
>>>>> the
>>>>> possibility of adding the new content type codes outside of the "user"
>>>>> range
>>>>> (i.e. adding new entries for them in Table 7.27) in the next 
>>>>> version of
>>>>> the
>>>>> specification.
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Scott Linder
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Dwarf-Discuss mailing list
>>>>> Dwarf-Discuss at lists.dwarfstd.org
>>>>> http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dwarf-Discuss mailing list
>>> Dwarf-Discuss at lists.dwarfstd.org
>>> http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org

Michael Eager    eager at eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306

More information about the Dwarf-discuss mailing list