[lldb] Add missing operations to GetOpcodeDataSize #120163
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb Author: Jonas Devlieghere (JDevlieghere) ChangesThe improved error reporting in #120162 revealed that we were missing opcodes in GetOpcodeDataSize. rdar://139705570 Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/120163.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/lldb/source/Expression/DWARFExpression.cpp b/lldb/source/Expression/DWARFExpression.cpp
index a7126b25c1cc38..34d508f97ae012 100644
--- a/lldb/source/Expression/DWARFExpression.cpp
+++ b/lldb/source/Expression/DWARFExpression.cpp
@@ -269,6 +269,7 @@ static lldb::offset_t GetOpcodeDataSize(const DataExtractor &data,
// All opcodes that have a single ULEB (signed or unsigned) argument
case DW_OP_addrx: // 0xa1 1 ULEB128 index
+ case DW_OP_constx: // 0xa2 1 ULEB128 index
case DW_OP_constu: // 0x10 1 ULEB128 constant
case DW_OP_consts: // 0x11 1 SLEB128 constant
case DW_OP_plus_uconst: // 0x23 1 ULEB128 addend
@@ -307,6 +308,8 @@ static lldb::offset_t GetOpcodeDataSize(const DataExtractor &data,
case DW_OP_regx: // 0x90 1 ULEB128 register
case DW_OP_fbreg: // 0x91 1 SLEB128 offset
case DW_OP_piece: // 0x93 1 ULEB128 size of piece addressed
+ case DW_OP_convert: // 0xa8 1 ULEB128 offset
+ case DW_OP_reinterpret: // 0xa9 1 ULEB128 offset
case DW_OP_GNU_addr_index: // 0xfb 1 ULEB128 index
case DW_OP_GNU_const_index: // 0xfc 1 ULEB128 index
data.Skip_LEB128(&offset);
|
adrian-prantl
approved these changes
Dec 17, 2024
| @@ -269,6 +269,7 @@ static lldb::offset_t GetOpcodeDataSize(const DataExtractor &data, | |||
|
|
|||
| // All opcodes that have a single ULEB (signed or unsigned) argument | |||
| case DW_OP_addrx: // 0xa1 1 ULEB128 index | |||
| case DW_OP_constx: // 0xa2 1 ULEB128 index | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think there might be value in keeping the list sorted by their numeric value.
| @@ -307,6 +308,8 @@ static lldb::offset_t GetOpcodeDataSize(const DataExtractor &data, | |||
| case DW_OP_regx: // 0x90 1 ULEB128 register | |||
| case DW_OP_fbreg: // 0x91 1 SLEB128 offset | |||
| case DW_OP_piece: // 0x93 1 ULEB128 size of piece addressed | |||
| case DW_OP_convert: // 0xa8 1 ULEB128 offset | |||
| case DW_OP_reinterpret: // 0xa9 1 ULEB128 offset | |||
| case DW_OP_GNU_addr_index: // 0xfb 1 ULEB128 index | |||
| case DW_OP_GNU_const_index: // 0xfc 1 ULEB128 index | |||
| data.Skip_LEB128(&offset); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we list all values explicitly and get rid of the default so we get a warning about missing entries in the future?
The improved error reporting in llvm#120162 revealed that we were missing opcodes in GetOpcodeDataSize. I changed the function to remove the default case and switch over the enum type which will cause the compiler to emit a warning if there are unhandled operations in the future. rdar://139705570
JDevlieghere
force-pushed
the
rdar139705570-part-2
branch
from
5aca34d to
21c9bbb
Compare
| case DW_OP_implicit_pointer: // 0xa0 4 + LEB128 | ||
| { | ||
| data.Skip_LEB128(&offset); | ||
| return 4 + offset - data_offset; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The first operand is a 4-byte unsigned value in the 32-bit DWARF format, or an 8-byte unsigned value in the 64-bit DWARF format
JDevlieghere
added a commit
to swiftlang/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 23, 2025
The improved error reporting in llvm#120162 revealed that we were missing opcodes in GetOpcodeDataSize. I changed the function to remove the default case and switch over the enum type which will cause the compiler to emit a warning if there are unhandled operations in the future. rdar://139705570 (cherry picked from commit 4cf1fe2)
adrian-prantl
added a commit
to swiftlang/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 23, 2025
…4cf1fe240589 [🍒 swift/release/6.1] [lldb] Add missing operations to GetOpcodeDataSize (llvm#120163)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The improved error reporting in #120162 revealed that we were missing
opcodes in GetOpcodeDataSize. I changed the function to remove the
default case and switch over the enum type which will cause the compiler
to emit a warning if there are unhandled operations in the future.
rdar://139705570