-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.3k
[lldb] Parse and display register field enums #95768
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a9b542a
[lldb] Parse and display register field enums
DavidSpickett 5b6c66f
* Cache enum types
DavidSpickett 360835f
Address review comments
DavidSpickett 8784809
Make sure evalues > 64 bit are ignored.
DavidSpickett 247f8db
expand comment about enumerator order
DavidSpickett File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we know the density of the keys here? Might be a good candidate for
llvm::IndexedMap
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In theory it's an enum so you'd start from 0 then 1, 2,3,4, etc. but this is hardware, so it's not going to be as regular as software enums.
The other problem with IndexedMap is that you've got to have a function uint64_t -> size_t to make the index, so for a 32 bit lldb the naive version ends up clipping off the top half of values. Are we likely to get a 64 bit enumerator value? No, but it's simpler to handle it than decide on another arbitrary cut off point.
If we ignore that issue, there is the issue of order of insertion. I'm assuming you iterate an IndexedMap using the indexes, but if the values of the enumerator are used for the indexes we may lose the original order.
Maybe if that requirement didn't come across clearly enough, I need to expand the comment with an example?
Or maybe I have the wrong end of the stick entirely.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've expanded the comment anyway.
I don't think anyone on the GDB side ever considered that order might matter, because I don't think they have a
register info
equivalent. You can print the type of the register but that's more of a C type, where enumerators being sorted isn't unexpected.(where "matter" is defined as "I thought of some niche use case that would be nice to have" :) )
Gray code values is another use case for this. 00, 01, 11, 10 - you might list it that way and wouldn't want lldb to sort it into normal numerical order.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's fair, was mostly asking to get an idea of what one can expect the data to look like. std::map is a fine choice here :)