Just regrouping the checks for the same typedef together and also giving the
different typedefs unique names. We might want to have a second test with
identical names to see how LLDB handle the potential name conflict, but that
should be a separate test and not part of the main typedef test.
Also this test is actually unintentionally passing. LLDB can't lookup typedefs
in a struct/class scope, but in the test the check passes as the local variable
in the expression evaluation scope pulls in the typedef. I added a second check
that makes it clear that this is not working right now.
This feature doesn't seem to have any dedicated test. Instead some random tests
(e.g. the bitfield tests) are declaring function-local classes for some reason.
This adds a dedicated test so we can clean up those other tests.
Also add FIXME's for some basic stuff that doesn't work. The first FIXME is a
good beginner bug which just requires prepending the function name (in case we
decide to fix it instead of documenting this behaviour). The second FIXME is
caused by LLDB searching for definitions by name (which also seems to miss the
function name so there is a conflict with the outer type).
Some more things that should be tested (and might not work):
* Local classes with member functions with local classes.
* Classes in different functions with same name.
* Classes with the same name in different TUs with internal linkage functions of
the same name.
* Empty classes are parsed by the DWARF parser in a fast path, so that requires
dedicated tests.
* Repeat some of the tested logic for C.
Summary:
In the spirit of https://reviews.llvm.org/D70846, we only return functions with
matching mangled name from Apple/DebugNamesDWARFIndex::GetFunction if
eFunctionNameTypeFull is requested.
This speeds up lookup in the presence of large amount of class methods of the
same name (a typical examples would be constructors of templates with many
instantiations or overloaded operators).
Reviewers: labath, teemperor
Reviewed By: labath, teemperor
Subscribers: aprantl, arphaman, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73191
C doesn't allow empty structs but Clang/GCC support them and give them a size of 0.
LLDB implements this by checking the tag kind and if it's `DW_TAG_structure_type` then
we give it a size of 0 via an empty external RecordLayout. This is done because our
internal TypeSystem is always in C++ mode (which means we would give them a size
of 1).
The current check for when we have this special case is currently too lax as types with
`DW_TAG_structure_type` can also occur in C++ with types defined using the `struct`
keyword. This means that in a C++ program with `struct Empty{};`, LLDB would return
`0` for `sizeof(Empty)` even though the correct size is 1.
This patch removes this special case and replaces it with a generic approach that just
assigns empty structs the byte_size as specified in DWARF. The GCC/Clang special
case is handles as they both emit an explicit `DW_AT_byte_size` of 0. And if another
compiler decides to use a different byte size for this case then this should also be
handled by the same code as long as that information is provided via `DW_AT_byte_size`.
Reviewed By: werat, shafik
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105471
DWARF doesn't describe templates itself but only actual template instantiations.
Because of that LLDB has to infer the parameters of the class template
declarations from the actual instantiations when creating the internal Clang AST
from debug info
Because there is no dedicated DIE for the class template, LLDB also creates the
`ClassTemplateDecl` implicitly when parsing a template instantiation. To avoid
creating one ClassTemplateDecls for every instantiation,
`TypeSystemClang::CreateClassTemplateDecl` will check if there is already a
`ClassTemplateDecl` in the requested `DeclContext` and will reuse a found
fitting declaration.
The logic that checks if a found class template fits to an instantiation is
currently just comparing the name of the template. So right now we map
`template<typename T> struct S;` to an instantiation with the values `S<1, 2,
3>` even though they clearly don't belong together.
This causes crashes later on when for example the Itanium mangler's
`TemplateArgManglingInfo::needExactType` method tries to find fitting the class
template parameter that fits to an instantiation value. In the example above it
will try to find the parameter for the value `2` but will just trigger a
boundary check when retrieving the parameter with index 1 from the class
template.
There are two ways we can end up with an instantiation that doesn't fit to a
class template with the same name:
1. We have two TUs with two templates that have the same name and internal
linkage.
2. A forward declared template instantiation is emitted by GCC and Clang
without an empty list of parameter values.
This patch makes the check for whether a class template declaration can be
reused more sophisticated by also comparing whether the parameter values can fit
to the found class template. If we can't find a fitting class template we
justcreate a second class template with the fitting parameters.
Fixes rdar://76592821
Reviewed By: kastiglione
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100662
Both tests are passing for GCC>8 on Linux so let's mark them as passing.
TestCPPAuto was originally disabled due to "an problem with debug info generation"
in ea35dbeff2 .
TestClassTemplateParameterPack was disabled without explanation in
0f01fb39e3 .
This reverts commit 00764c36ed and the
follow up d2223c7a49.
The original patch broke that one could use static member variables while
inside a static member functions without having a running target. It seems that
LLDB currently requires that static variables are only found via the global
variable lookup so that they can get materialized and mapped to the argument
struct of the expression.
After 00764c36ed static variables of the current
class could be found via Clang's lookup which LLDB isn't observing. This
resulting in expressions actually containing these variables as normal
globals that can't be rewritten to a member of the argument struct.
More specifically, in the test TestCPPThis, the expression
`expr --j false -- s_a` is now only passing if we have a runnable target.
I'll revert the patch as the possible fixes aren't trivial and it degrades
the debugging experience more than the issue that the revert patch addressed.
The underlying bug can be reproduced before/after this patch by stopping
in `TestCPPThis` main function and running: `e -j false -- my_a; A<int>::s_a`.
The `my_a` will pull in the `A<int>` class and the second expression will
be resolved by Clang on its own (which causes LLDB to not materialize the
static variable).
Note: A workaround is to just do `::s_a` which will force LLDB to take the global
variable lookup.
When checking for type properties we usually want to strip all kind of type
sugar from the type. For example, sugar like Clang's ElaboratedType or typedefs
rarely influence the fundamental behaviour of a type such as its byte size.
However we always need to preserve type sugar for everything else as it does
matter for users that their variable of type `size_t` instead of `unsigned long`
for example.
This patch fixes one such bug when trying to use the SBValue API to dereference
a type.
Reviewed By: werat, shafik
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103532
This was originally failed because of llvm.org/pr21765 which describes that
LLDB can't call a debugee's functions, but I removed the (unnecessary)
function call in the rewrite. It seems that the actual bug here is that we
can't lookup static members at all, so let's X-FAIL the test for the right
reason.
Clang adds a Decl in two phases to a DeclContext. First it adds it invisible and
then it makes it visible (which will add it to the lookup data structures). It's
important that we can't do lookups into the DeclContext we are currently adding
the Decl to during this process as once the Decl has been added, any lookup will
automatically build a new lookup map and add the added Decl to it. The second
step would then add the Decl a second time to the lookup which will lead to
weird errors later one. I made adding a Decl twice to a lookup an assertion
error in D84827.
In the first step Clang also does some computations on the added Decl if it's
for example a FieldDecl that is added to a RecordDecl.
One of these computations is checking if the FieldDecl is of a record type
and the record type has a deleted constexpr destructor which will delete
the constexpr destructor of the record that got the FieldDecl.
This can lead to a bug with the way we implement MinimalImport in LLDB
and the following code:
```
struct Outer {
typedef int HookToOuter;
struct NestedClass {
HookToOuter RefToOuter;
} NestedClassMember; // We are adding this.
};
```
1. We just imported `Outer` minimally so far.
2. We are now asked to add `NestedClassMember` as a FieldDecl.
3. We import `NestedClass` minimally.
4. We add `NestedClassMember` and clang does a lookup for a constexpr dtor in
`NestedClass`. `NestedClassMember` hasn't been added to the lookup.
5. The lookup into `NestedClass` will now load the members of `NestedClass`.
6. We try to import the type of `RefToOuter` which will try to import the `HookToOuter` typedef.
7. We import the typedef and while importing we check for conflicts in `Outer` via a lookup.
8. The lookup into `Outer` will cause the invisible `NestedClassMember` to be added to the lookup.
9. We continue normally until we get back to the `addDecl` call in step 2.
10. We now add `NestedClassMember` to the lookup even though we already did that in step 8.
The fix here is disabling the minimal import for RecordTypes from FieldDecls. We
actually already did this, but so far we only force the definition of the type
to be imported *after* we imported the FieldDecl. This just moves that code
*before* we import the FieldDecl so prevent the issue above.
Reviewed By: shafik, aprantl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102993
It's not clear why the whole test got disabled, but the linked bug report
has since been fixed and the only part of it that still fails is the test
for the too permissive lookup. This re-enables the test, rewrites it to use
the modern test functions we have and splits the failing part into its
own test that we can skip without disabling the rest.
`bool` is considered to be unsigned according to `std::is_unsigned<bool>::value` (and `Type::GetTypeInfo`). Encoding it as signed int works fine for normal variables and fields, but breaks when reading the values of boolean bitfields. If the field is declared as `bool b : 1` and has a value of `0b1`, the call to `SBValue::GetValueAsSigned()` will return `-1`.
Reviewed By: teemperor
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102685
The test added in D100977 is failing to compile on these platforms. This seems
to be caused by GCC, MSVC and Clang@Windows rejecting the code because
`ToLayout` isn't complete when pointer_to_member_member is declared (even though
that seems to be valid code).
This also reverts the test changes in the lazy-loading test from D100977 as
that failed for the same reason.
At the moment the expression parser doesn't support evaluating expressions in
static member functions and just pretends the expression is evaluated within a
non-member function. This causes that all static members are inaccessible when
doing unqualified name lookup.
This patch adds support for evaluating in static member functions. It
essentially just does the same setup as what LLDB is already doing for
non-static member functions (i.e., wrapping the expression in a fake member
function) with the difference that we now mark the wrapping function as static
(to prevent access to non-static members).
Reviewed By: shafik, jarin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81550
When LLDB's DWARF parser is parsing the member DIEs of a struct/class it
currently fully resolves the types of static member variables in a class before
adding the respective `VarDecl` to the record.
For record types fully resolving the type will also parse the member DIEs of the
respective class. The other way of resolving is just 'forward' resolving the type
which will try to load only the minimum amount of information about the type
(for records that would only be the name/kind of the type). Usually we always
resolve types on-demand so it's rarely useful to speculatively fully resolve
them on the first use.
This patch changes makes that we only 'forward' resolve the types of static
members. This solves the fact that LLDB unnecessarily loads debug information
to parse the type if it's maybe not needed later and it also avoids a crash where
the parsed type might in turn reference the surrounding class that is currently
being parsed.
The new test case demonstrates the crash that might happen. The crash happens
with the following steps:
1. We parse class `ToLayout` and it's members.
2. We parse the static class member and fully resolve its type
(`DependsOnParam2<ToLayout>`).
3. That type has a non-static class member `DependsOnParam1<ToLayout>` for which
LLDB will try to calculate the size.
4. The layout (and size)`DependsOnParam1<ToLayout>` turns depends on the
`ToLayout` size/layout.
5. Clang will calculate the record layout/size for `ToLayout` even though we are
currently parsing it and it's missing it's non-static member.
The created is missing the offset for the yet unparsed non-static member. If we
later try to get the offset we end up hitting different asserts. Most common is
the one in `TypeSystemClang::DumpValue` where it checks that the record layout
has offsets for the current FieldDecl.
```
assert(field_idx < record_layout.getFieldCount());
```
Fixed rdar://67910011
Reviewed By: shafik
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100180
Right now when running `expr --top-level -- void foo() {}`, LLDB just prints a cryptic
`error: Couldn't find $__lldb_expr() in the module` error. The reason for that is
that if we don't have a running process, we try to set our execution policy to always use the
IR interpreter (ExecutionPolicyNever) which works even without a process. However
that code didn't consider the special ExecutionPolicyTopLevel which we use for
top-level expressions. By changing the execution policy to ExecutionPolicyNever,
LLDB thinks we're actually trying to interpret a normal expression inside our
`$__lldb_expr` function and then fails when looking for it.
This just adds an exception for top-level expressions to that code and a bunch of tests.
Reviewed By: shafik
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91723
Convert `assertTrue(a == b)` to `assertEqual(a, b)` to produce better failure messages.
These were mostly done via regex search & replace, with some manual fixes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95813
Copy paste error, but the test still built on macOS. Weird.
It failed on debian linux with an error about -fno-limit-debug-info
not being a supported flag??? Not sure how this goof would cause
that error, but let's see if it did...
If they occurred before the constructor that used them, we would refuse to
set the breakpoint because we thought they were crossing function boundaries.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94846
We currently reject all templates that have either zero args or that have a
parameter pack without a name. Both cases are actually allowed in C++, so
rejecting them leads to LLDB instead falling back to a dummy 'void' type. This
leads to all kind of errors later on (most notable, variables that have such
template types appear to be missing as we can't have 'void' variables and
inheriting from such a template type will cause Clang to hit some asserts when
finding that the base class is 'void').
This just removes the too strict tests and adds a few tests for this stuff (+
some combinations of these tests with preceding template parameters).
Things that I left for follow-up patches:
* All the possible interactions with template-template arguments which seem like a whole new source of possible bugs.
* Function templates which completely lack sanity checks.
* Variable templates are not implemented.
* Alias templates are not implemented too.
* The rather strange checks that just make sure that the separate list of
template arg names and values always have the same length. I believe those
ought to be asserts, but my current plan is to move both those things into a
single list that can't end up in this inconsistent state.
Reviewed By: JDevlieghere, shafik
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92425
* Un-inline the test.
* Use expect_expr everywhere and also check all involved types.
* Clang-format the test sources.
* Explain what we're actually testing with the 'C' and 'D' templates.
* Split out the non-template-parameter-pack part of the test into its own small test.
Our type formatters/summaries match on the internal type name we generate in LLDB for Clang types.
These names were generated using Clang's default printing policy. However Clang's
default printing policy got tweaked over the last month to make the generated type
names more readable (by for example excluding inline/anonymous namespaces and
removing template arguments that have their default value). This broke the formatter
system where LLDB's matching logic now no longer can format certain types as
the new type names generated by Clang's default printing policy no longer match
the type names that LLDB/the user specified.
I already introduced LLDB's own type printing policy and fixed the inline/anonymous
namespaces in da121fff11 (just to get the
test suite passing again).
This patch is restoring the old type printing behaviour where always include the template
arguments in the internal type name (even if they match the default args). This should get
template type formatters/summaries working again in the rare situation where we do
know template default arguments within LLDB. This can only happen when either having
a template that was parsed in the expression parser or when we get type information from a C++ module.
The Clang change that removed defaulted template arguments from Clang's printing policy was
e7f3e2103c
Reviewed By: labath
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92311
LLDB is currently always activating C++ when parsing expressions as LLDB itself
is using C++ features when creating the final AST that will be codegen'd
(specifically, references to variables, namespaces and using declarations are
used).
This is causing problems for users that have variables in non-C++ programs (e.g.
plain C or Objective-C) that have names which are keywords in C++. Expressions
referencing those variables fail to parse as LLDB's Clang parser thinks those
identifiers are C++ keywords and not identifiers that may belong to a
declaration.
We can't just disable C++ in the expression parser for those situations as
replacing the functionality of the injected C++ code isn't trivial. So this
patch is just disabling most keywords that are exclusive to C++ in LLDB's Clang
parser when we are in a non-C++ expression. There are a few keywords we can't
disable for now:
* `using` as that's currently used in some situations to inject variables into the expression function.
* `__null` as that's used by LLDB to define `NULL`/`Nil`/`nil`.
Getting rid of these last two keywords is possible but is a large enough change
that this will be handled in follow up patches.
Note that this only changes the keyword status of those tokens but this patch
does not remove any C++ functionality from the expression parser. The type
system still follows C++ rules and so does the rest of the expression parser.
There is another small change that gives the hardcoded macro definitions in LLDB
a higher precedence than the macros imported from the Objective-C modules. The
reason for this is that the Objective-C modules in LLDB are actually parsed in
Objective-C++ mode and they end up providing the C++ definitions of certain
system macros (like `NULL` being defined as `nullptr`). So we have to move the
LLDB definition forward and surround the definition from the module with an
`#ifdef` to make sure that we use the correct LLDB definition that doesn't
reference C++ keywords. Or to give an example, this is how the expression source
code changes:
Before:
```
#define NULL (nullptr) // injected module definition
#ifndef NULL
#define NULL (__null) // hardcoded LLDB definition
#endif
```
After:
```
#ifndef NULL
#define NULL (__null) // hardcoded LLDB definition
#endif
#ifndef NULL
#define NULL (nullptr) // injected module definition
#endif
```
Fixes rdar://10356912
Reviewed By: shafik
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82770
When parsing DWARF and laying out bit-fields we don't properly take into account when they are in a union, they will all have a zero offset.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91118
This adds `expect_var_path` to test variable paths so we no longer have to
use `frame var` and find substrs in the command output. The behaviour
is identical with `expect_expr` (and it also uses the same checking backend),
but it instead calls `GetValueForVariablePath` to evaluate the string as a variable
path.
Also rewrites a few of the tests that previously used `frame variable` to use
`expect_var_path`.
Reviewed By: labath
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90450
Make category-specifying files visible. There is really no good reason
to keep them hidden, and having them visible increases the chances
that someone will actually spot them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91065
