From 461bd680c33f35b90843072fd558bbd03b12de3c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ulrich Weigand Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:32:57 +0000 Subject: Handle bit fields on big-endian systems correctly Currently, the DataExtractor::GetMaxU64Bitfield and GetMaxS64Bitfield routines assume the incoming "bitfield_bit_offset" parameter uses little-endian bit numbering, i.e. a bitfield_bit_offset 0 refers to a bitfield whose least-significant bit coincides with the least- significant bit of the surrounding integer. On many big-endian systems, however, the big-endian bit numbering is used for bit fields. Here, a bitfield_bit_offset 0 refers to a bitfield whose most-significant bit conincides with the most- significant bit of the surrounding integer. Now, in principle LLDB could arbitrarily choose which semantics of bitfield_bit_offset to use. However, there are two problems with the current approach: - When parsing DWARF, LLDB decodes bit offsets in little-endian bit numbering on LE systems, but in big-endian bit numbering on BE systems. Passing those offsets later on into the DataExtractor routines gives incorrect results on BE. - In the interim, LLDB's type layer combines byte and bit offsets into a single number. I.e. instead of recording bitfields by specifying the byte offset and byte size of the surrounding integer *plus* the bit offset of the bit field within that field, it simply records a single bit offset number. Now, note that converting from byte offset + bit offset to a single offset value and back is well-defined if we either use little-endian byte order *and* little-endian bit numbering, or use big-endian byte order *and* big-endian bit numbering. Any other combination will yield incorrect results. Therefore, the simplest approach would seem to be to always use the bit numbering that matches the system byte order. This makes storing a single bit offset valid, and makes the existing DWARF code correct. The only place to fix is to teach DataExtractor to use big-endian bit numbering on big endian systems. However, there is only additional caveat: we also get bit offsets from LLDB synthetic bitfields. While the exact semantics of those doesn't seem to be well-defined, from test cases it appears that the intent was for the user-provided synthetic bitfield offset to always use little-endian bit numbering. Therefore, on a big-endian system we now have to convert those to big-endian bit numbering to remain consistent. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18982 llvm-svn: 266312 --- lldb/source/Core/ValueObject.cpp | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'lldb/source/Core/ValueObject.cpp') diff --git a/lldb/source/Core/ValueObject.cpp b/lldb/source/Core/ValueObject.cpp index 075f031d467..69205aaf754 100644 --- a/lldb/source/Core/ValueObject.cpp +++ b/lldb/source/Core/ValueObject.cpp @@ -2146,6 +2146,10 @@ ValueObject::GetSyntheticBitFieldChild (uint32_t from, uint32_t to, bool can_cre synthetic_child_sp = GetSyntheticChild (index_const_str); if (!synthetic_child_sp) { + uint32_t bit_field_size = to - from + 1; + uint32_t bit_field_offset = from; + if (GetDataExtractor().GetByteOrder() == eByteOrderBig) + bit_field_offset = GetByteSize() * 8 - bit_field_size - bit_field_offset; // We haven't made a synthetic array member for INDEX yet, so // lets make one and cache it for any future reference. ValueObjectChild *synthetic_child = new ValueObjectChild (*this, @@ -2153,8 +2157,8 @@ ValueObject::GetSyntheticBitFieldChild (uint32_t from, uint32_t to, bool can_cre index_const_str, GetByteSize(), 0, - to-from+1, - from, + bit_field_size, + bit_field_offset, false, false, eAddressTypeInvalid, -- cgit v1.2.3