[3/8] infcall, c++: collect more pass-by-reference information

Walk through a given type to collect information about whether the type
is copy constructible, destructible, trivially copyable, trivially copy
constructible, trivially destructible.  The previous algorithm returned
only a boolean result about whether the type is trivially copyable.
This patch computes more info.  Additionally, it utilizes DWARF attributes
that were previously not taken into account; namely,
DW_AT_deleted, DW_AT_defaulted, and DW_AT_calling_convention.

gdb/ChangeLog:

	* gnu-v3-abi.c (enum definition_style): New.
	(get_def_style): New.
	(is_user_provided_def): New.
	(is_implicit_def): New.
	(is_copy_or_move_constructor_type): New.
	(is_copy_constructor_type): New.
	(is_move_constructor_type): New.
	(gnuv3_pass_by_reference): Update.

---
 gdb/gnu-v3-abi.c | 259 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 208 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)

* Tankut Baris Aktemur <tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com> [2019-04-23 16:31:49 +0200]:

> Walk through a given type to collect information about whether the type
> is copy constructible, destructible, trivially copyable, trivially copy
> constructible, trivially destructible.  The previous algorithm returned
> only a boolean result about whether the type is trivially copyable.
> This patch computes more info.  Additionally, it utilizes DWARF attributes
> that were previously not taken into account; namely,
> DW_AT_deleted, DW_AT_defaulted, and DW_AT_calling_convention.
> 
> gdb/ChangeLog:
> 
> 	* gnu-v3-abi.c (enum definition_style): New.
> 	(get_def_style): New.
> 	(is_user_provided_def): New.
> 	(is_implicit_def): New.
> 	(is_copy_or_move_constructor_type): New.
> 	(is_copy_constructor_type): New.
> 	(is_move_constructor_type): New.
> 	(gnuv3_pass_by_reference): Update.

I'm basically happy with this, a few formatting issues and questions
about comments below.

> 
> ---
>  gdb/gnu-v3-abi.c | 259 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 208 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/gdb/gnu-v3-abi.c b/gdb/gnu-v3-abi.c
> index b39e5a5c585..9069305626f 100644
> --- a/gdb/gnu-v3-abi.c
> +++ b/gdb/gnu-v3-abi.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>  #include "cp-abi.h"
>  #include "cp-support.h"
>  #include "demangle.h"
> +#include "dwarf2.h"
>  #include "objfiles.h"
>  #include "valprint.h"
>  #include "c-lang.h"
> @@ -1228,6 +1229,122 @@ gnuv3_skip_trampoline (struct frame_info *frame, CORE_ADDR stop_pc)
>    return real_stop_pc;
>  }
>  
> +/* A member function is in one these states.  */
> +
> +enum definition_style
> +{
> +  DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE,
> +  DEFAULTED_INSIDE,
> +  DEFAULTED_OUTSIDE,
> +  DELETED,
> +  EXPLICIT,
> +};
> +
> +/* Return how the given field is defined.  */
> +
> +static definition_style
> +get_def_style (struct fn_field *fn, int fieldelem)
> +{
> +  if (TYPE_FN_FIELD_DELETED (fn, fieldelem))
> +    return DELETED;
> +
> +  if (TYPE_FN_FIELD_ARTIFICIAL (fn, fieldelem))
> +    return DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE;
> +
> +  switch (TYPE_FN_FIELD_DEFAULTED (fn, fieldelem))
> +    {
> +    case DW_DEFAULTED_no:
> +      return EXPLICIT;
> +    case DW_DEFAULTED_in_class:
> +      return DEFAULTED_INSIDE;
> +    case DW_DEFAULTED_out_of_class:
> +      return DEFAULTED_OUTSIDE;
> +    default:
> +      break;
> +    }
> +
> +  return EXPLICIT;
> +}
> +
> +/* Helper functions to determine whether the given definition style
> +   denotes that the definition is user-provided or implicit.
> +   Being defaulted outside the class decl counts as an explicit
> +   user-definition, while being defaulted inside is implicit.  */
> +
> +static bool
> +is_user_provided_def (definition_style def)
> +{
> +  return def == EXPLICIT || def == DEFAULTED_OUTSIDE;
> +}
> +
> +static bool
> +is_implicit_def (definition_style def)
> +{
> +  return def == DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE || def == DEFAULTED_INSIDE;
> +}
> +
> +/* Helper function to decide if METHOD_TYPE is a copy/move
> +   constructor type for CLASS_TYPE.  EXPECTED is the expected
> +   type code for the "right-hand-side" argument.
> +   This function is supposed to be used by the IS_COPY_CONSTRUCTOR_TYPE
> +   and IS_MOVE_CONSTRUCTOR_TYPE functions below.  Normally, you should
> +   not need to call this directly.  */
> +
> +static bool
> +is_copy_or_move_constructor_type (struct type *class_type,
> +				  struct type *method_type,
> +				  type_code expected)
> +{
> +  /* The method should take at least two arguments...  */
> +  if (TYPE_NFIELDS (method_type) < 2)
> +    return false;
> +
> +  /* ...and the second argument should be the same as the class
> +     type, with the expected type code...  */
> +  struct type *arg_type = TYPE_FIELD_TYPE (method_type, 1);
> +
> +  if (TYPE_CODE (arg_type) != expected)
> +    return false;
> +
> +  struct type *target = check_typedef (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (arg_type));
> +  if (!(class_types_same_p (target, class_type)))
> +    return false;
> +
> +  /* ...and the rest of the arguments should have default values.  */

This comment threw me for a while I read this to mean that I couldn't
legally write something like:

  struct A
  {
    int a;
    A (const A &other, int arg);
  };

which is daft, because obviously I can.  Then I realised that that
isn't a copy constructor, it's just a constructor that takes an 'A&',
doh!

But, I wonder if the comment could be made clearer to help those of us
a bit slower on the uptake, maybe something like:

  /* ...and if any of the remaining arguments don't have a default value
     then this is not a copy or move constructor, but just a constructor.  */

> +  for (int i = 2; i < TYPE_NFIELDS (method_type); i++)
> +    {
> +      arg_type = TYPE_FIELD_TYPE (method_type, i);
> +      /* FIXME taktemur/2019-04-23: As of this date, neither
> +	 clang++-7.0.0 nor g++-8.2.0 produce a DW_AT_default_value
> +	 attribute.  GDB is also not set to read this attribute, yet.
> +	 Hence, we immediately return false if there are more than
> +	 2 parameters.  */
> +      return false;
> +    }
> +
> +  return true;
> +}
> +
> +/* Return true if METHOD_TYPE is a copy ctor type for CLASS_TYPE.  */
> +
> +static bool
> +is_copy_constructor_type (struct type *class_type,
> +			  struct type *method_type)
> +{
> +  return is_copy_or_move_constructor_type (class_type, method_type,
> +					   TYPE_CODE_REF);
> +}
> +
> +/* Return true if METHOD_TYPE is a move ctor type for CLASS_TYPE.  */
> +
> +static bool
> +is_move_constructor_type (struct type *class_type,
> +			  struct type *method_type)
> +{
> +  return is_copy_or_move_constructor_type (class_type, method_type,
> +					   TYPE_CODE_RVALUE_REF);
> +}
> +
>  /* Return pass-by-reference information for the given TYPE.
>  
>     The rule in the v3 ABI document comes from section 3.1.1.  If the
> @@ -1236,16 +1353,15 @@ gnuv3_skip_trampoline (struct frame_info *frame, CORE_ADDR stop_pc)
>     is one or perform the copy itself otherwise), pass the address of
>     the copy, and then destroy the temporary (if necessary).
>  
> -   For return values with non-trivial copy constructors or
> +   For return values with non-trivial copy/move constructors or
>     destructors, space will be allocated in the caller, and a pointer
>     will be passed as the first argument (preceding "this").
>  
>     We don't have a bulletproof mechanism for determining whether a
> -   constructor or destructor is trivial.  For GCC and DWARF2 debug
> -   information, we can check the artificial flag.
> -
> -   We don't do anything with the constructors or destructors,
> -   but we have to get the argument passing right anyway.  */
> +   constructor or destructor is trivial.  For GCC and DWARF5 debug
> +   information, we can check the calling_convention attribute,
> +   the 'artificial' flag, the 'defaulted' attribute, and the
> +   'deleted' attribute.  */
>  
>  static struct language_pass_by_ref_info
>  gnuv3_pass_by_reference (struct type *type)
> @@ -1258,22 +1374,39 @@ gnuv3_pass_by_reference (struct type *type)
>    struct language_pass_by_ref_info info
>      = default_pass_by_reference (type);
>  
> -  /* FIXME: Currently, this implementation only fills in the
> -     'trivially-copyable' field.  */
> +  bool has_cc_attr = false;
> +  bool is_pass_by_value = false;
> +  bool is_dynamic = false;
> +  definition_style cctor_def = DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE;
> +  definition_style dtor_def = DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE;
> +  definition_style mctor_def = DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE;
>  
>    /* We're only interested in things that can have methods.  */
>    if (TYPE_CODE (type) != TYPE_CODE_STRUCT
>        && TYPE_CODE (type) != TYPE_CODE_UNION)
>      return info;
>  
> +  /* The compiler may have emitted the calling convention attribute.  */
> +  if (TYPE_CPLUS_CALLING_CONVENTION (type) == DW_CC_pass_by_value)
> +    {
> +      has_cc_attr = true;
> +      is_pass_by_value = true;
> +      /* Do not return immediately.  We have to find out if this type
> +	 is copy_constructible and destructible.  */
> +    }
> +
> +  if (TYPE_CPLUS_CALLING_CONVENTION (type) == DW_CC_pass_by_reference)
> +    {
> +      has_cc_attr = true;
> +      is_pass_by_value = false;
> +    }
> +
>    /* A dynamic class has a non-trivial copy constructor.
>       See c++98 section 12.8 Copying class objects [class.copy].  */
>    if (gnuv3_dynamic_class (type))
> -    {
> -      info.trivially_copyable = false;
> -      return info;
> -    }
> +    is_dynamic = true;
>  
> +  /* FIXME taktemur/2019-04-23: What if there are multiple cctors?  */

Can such a situation arise?  If you know how it could but don't know
how to handle it then can we expand the comment.  If you don't think
such a situation could arise then lets delete this comment and add an
assertion below.

>    for (fieldnum = 0; fieldnum < TYPE_NFN_FIELDS (type); fieldnum++)
>      for (fieldelem = 0; fieldelem < TYPE_FN_FIELDLIST_LENGTH (type, fieldnum);
>  	 fieldelem++)
> @@ -1282,49 +1415,53 @@ gnuv3_pass_by_reference (struct type *type)
>  	const char *name = TYPE_FN_FIELDLIST_NAME (type, fieldnum);
>  	struct type *fieldtype = TYPE_FN_FIELD_TYPE (fn, fieldelem);
>  
> -	/* If this function is marked as artificial, it is compiler-generated,
> -	   and we assume it is trivial.  */
> -	if (TYPE_FN_FIELD_ARTIFICIAL (fn, fieldelem))
> -	  continue;
> -
> -	/* If we've found a destructor, we must pass this by reference.  */
>  	if (name[0] == '~')
>  	  {
> -	    info.trivially_copyable = false;
> -	    return info;
> +	    /* We've found a destructor.  */
> +	    dtor_def = get_def_style (fn, fieldelem);
> +	    info.dtor_name = TYPE_FN_FIELD_PHYSNAME (fn, fieldelem);

Maybe we should have an error or at least a warning if
'info.dtor_name' is not nullptr before this assignment - this would
indicate multiple destructors, which seems weird, right?

>  	  }
> -
> -	/* If the mangled name of this method doesn't indicate that it
> -	   is a constructor, we're not interested.
> -
> -	   FIXME drow/2007-09-23: We could do this using the name of
> -	   the method and the name of the class instead of dealing
> -	   with the mangled name.  We don't have a convenient function
> -	   to strip off both leading scope qualifiers and trailing
> -	   template arguments yet.  */
> -	if (!is_constructor_name (TYPE_FN_FIELD_PHYSNAME (fn, fieldelem))
> -	    && !TYPE_FN_FIELD_CONSTRUCTOR (fn, fieldelem))
> -	  continue;
> -
> -	/* If this method takes two arguments, and the second argument is
> -	   a reference to this class, then it is a copy constructor.  */
> -	if (TYPE_NFIELDS (fieldtype) == 2)
> +	else if (is_constructor_name (TYPE_FN_FIELD_PHYSNAME (fn, fieldelem))
> +		 || TYPE_FN_FIELD_CONSTRUCTOR (fn, fieldelem))
>  	  {
> -	    struct type *arg_type = TYPE_FIELD_TYPE (fieldtype, 1);
> -
> -	    if (TYPE_CODE (arg_type) == TYPE_CODE_REF)
> +	    /* FIXME drow/2007-09-23: We could do this using the name of
> +	       the method and the name of the class instead of dealing
> +	       with the mangled name.  We don't have a convenient function
> +	       to strip off both leading scope qualifiers and trailing
> +	       template arguments yet.  */
> +	    if (is_copy_constructor_type (type, fieldtype))
>  	      {
> -		struct type *arg_target_type
> -		  = check_typedef (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (arg_type));
> -		if (class_types_same_p (arg_target_type, type))
> -		  {
> -		    info.trivially_copyable = false;
> -		    return info;
> -		  }
> +		cctor_def = get_def_style (fn, fieldelem);
> +		info.cctor_name = TYPE_FN_FIELD_PHYSNAME (fn, fieldelem);

This would be where we assert that we only have one cctor I think...

>  	      }
> +	    else if (is_move_constructor_type (type, fieldtype))
> +	      mctor_def = get_def_style (fn, fieldelem);
>  	  }
>        }
>  
> +  bool cctor_implicitly_deleted
> +    =  mctor_def != DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE
> +    && cctor_def == DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE;

I think this should be parenthesised like this:

  bool cctor_implicitly_deleted
    =  (mctor_def != DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE
        && cctor_def == DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE);

My reference is:
  https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Formatting


> +
> +  bool cctor_explicitly_deleted = cctor_def == DELETED;
> +
> +  if (cctor_implicitly_deleted || cctor_explicitly_deleted)
> +    info.copy_constructible = false;
> +
> +  if (dtor_def == DELETED)
> +    info.destructible = false;
> +
> +  info.trivially_destructible = is_implicit_def (dtor_def);
> +
> +  info.trivially_copy_constructible
> +    =  is_implicit_def (cctor_def)
> +    && !is_dynamic;

Again extra ( ... ) needed I think.

> +
> +  info.trivially_copyable
> +    =  info.trivially_copy_constructible
> +    && info.trivially_destructible
> +    && !is_user_provided_def (mctor_def);

And again.

> +
>    /* Even if all the constructors and destructors were artificial, one
>       of them may have invoked a non-artificial constructor or
>       destructor in a base class.  If any base class needs to be passed
> @@ -1335,15 +1472,35 @@ gnuv3_pass_by_reference (struct type *type)
>    for (fieldnum = 0; fieldnum < TYPE_NFIELDS (type); fieldnum++)
>      if (!field_is_static (&TYPE_FIELD (type, fieldnum)))
>        {
> +	struct type *field_type = TYPE_FIELD_TYPE (type, fieldnum);
> +
> +	/* For arrays, make the decision based on the element type.  */
> +	if (TYPE_CODE (field_type) == TYPE_CODE_ARRAY)
> +	  field_type = field_type->main_type->target_type;
> +
>  	struct language_pass_by_ref_info field_info
> -	  = gnuv3_pass_by_reference (TYPE_FIELD_TYPE (type, fieldnum));
> +	  = gnuv3_pass_by_reference (field_type);
> +
> +	if (!field_info.copy_constructible)
> +	  info.copy_constructible = false;
> +	if (!field_info.destructible)
> +	  info.destructible = false;
>  	if (!field_info.trivially_copyable)
> -	  {
> -	    info.trivially_copyable = false;
> -	    return info;
> -	  }
> +	  info.trivially_copyable = false;
> +	if (!field_info.trivially_copy_constructible)
> +	  info.trivially_copy_constructible = false;
> +	if (!field_info.trivially_destructible)
> +	  info.trivially_destructible = false;
>        }
>  
> +  /* Consistency check.  */
> +  if (has_cc_attr && info.trivially_copyable != is_pass_by_value)
> +    {
> +      /* DWARF CC attribute is not the same as the inferred value;
> +	 using the DWARF attribute.  */
> +      info.trivially_copyable = is_pass_by_value;
> +    }
> +
>    return info;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.21.0
> 

Thanks,
Andrew

> > Walk through a given type to collect information about whether the type
> > is copy constructible, destructible, trivially copyable, trivially copy
> > constructible, trivially destructible.  The previous algorithm returned
> > only a boolean result about whether the type is trivially copyable.
> > This patch computes more info.  Additionally, it utilizes DWARF attributes
> > that were previously not taken into account; namely,
> > DW_AT_deleted, DW_AT_defaulted, and DW_AT_calling_convention.
> 
> I'm basically happy with this, a few formatting issues and questions
> about comments below.
>

Thank you.

> >
> > +  /* FIXME taktemur/2019-04-23: What if there are multiple cctors?  */
> 
> Can such a situation arise?  If you know how it could but don't know
> how to handle it then can we expand the comment.  If you don't think
> such a situation could arise then lets delete this comment and add an
> assertion below.
> 

Such a situation can arise when there is a copy ctor that takes a
non-const &T and another that takes a const &T.  I'm planning to
add the example below to the comment:

  /* FIXME taktemur/2019-04-23: What if there are multiple copy ctors?
     E.g.:
       class C {
       public:
         C (C &c) { ... }
         C (const C &c) { ... }
       };
  */

The correct version shall be selected based on the type of the argument,
but I don't know how to express that in GDB.


> >    for (fieldnum = 0; fieldnum < TYPE_NFN_FIELDS (type); fieldnum++)
> >      for (fieldelem = 0; fieldelem < TYPE_FN_FIELDLIST_LENGTH (type, fieldnum);
> >  	 fieldelem++)
> > @@ -1282,49 +1415,53 @@ gnuv3_pass_by_reference (struct type *type)
> >  	const char *name = TYPE_FN_FIELDLIST_NAME (type, fieldnum);
> >  	struct type *fieldtype = TYPE_FN_FIELD_TYPE (fn, fieldelem);
> >
> > -	/* If this function is marked as artificial, it is compiler-generated,
> > -	   and we assume it is trivial.  */
> > -	if (TYPE_FN_FIELD_ARTIFICIAL (fn, fieldelem))
> > -	  continue;
> > -
> > -	/* If we've found a destructor, we must pass this by reference.  */
> >  	if (name[0] == '~')
> >  	  {
> > -	    info.trivially_copyable = false;
> > -	    return info;
> > +	    /* We've found a destructor.  */
> > +	    dtor_def = get_def_style (fn, fieldelem);
> > +	    info.dtor_name = TYPE_FN_FIELD_PHYSNAME (fn, fieldelem);
> 
> Maybe we should have an error or at least a warning if
> 'info.dtor_name' is not nullptr before this assignment - this would
> indicate multiple destructors, which seems weird, right?
> 

I believe the 'info.dtor_name' field can be nullptr even if a destructor
definition exists, if the destructor is inlined and hence its code does
not exist in the object file.  (Such a case also requires special treatment
and is handled at the client side, in gdb/infcall.c in part 7/8 of this patch.)
So, I thought I should gdb_assert on 'dtor_def == DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE'
instead.  Is this OK?

> > +	    if (is_copy_constructor_type (type, fieldtype))
> >  	      {
> > -		struct type *arg_target_type
> > -		  = check_typedef (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (arg_type));
> > -		if (class_types_same_p (arg_target_type, type))
> > -		  {
> > -		    info.trivially_copyable = false;
> > -		    return info;
> > -		  }
> > +		cctor_def = get_def_style (fn, fieldelem);
> > +		info.cctor_name = TYPE_FN_FIELD_PHYSNAME (fn, fieldelem);
> 
> This would be where we assert that we only have one cctor I think...
> 

Similarly, I'm planning to assert 'cctor_def == DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE'.

> > +  bool cctor_implicitly_deleted
> > +    =  mctor_def != DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE
> > +    && cctor_def == DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE;
> 
> I think this should be parenthesised like this:
> 
>   bool cctor_implicitly_deleted
>     =  (mctor_def != DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE
>         && cctor_def == DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE);
> 
> My reference is:
>   https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Formatting
> 

Thanks for the pointer.  I'll address these formatting issues in the next update.

> 
> Thanks,
> Andrew

Regards,
-Baris

Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Gary Kershaw
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928

* Aktemur, Tankut Baris <tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com> [2019-05-31 13:55:58 +0000]:

> > > Walk through a given type to collect information about whether the type
> > > is copy constructible, destructible, trivially copyable, trivially copy
> > > constructible, trivially destructible.  The previous algorithm returned
> > > only a boolean result about whether the type is trivially copyable.
> > > This patch computes more info.  Additionally, it utilizes DWARF attributes
> > > that were previously not taken into account; namely,
> > > DW_AT_deleted, DW_AT_defaulted, and DW_AT_calling_convention.
> > 
> > I'm basically happy with this, a few formatting issues and questions
> > about comments below.
> >
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> > >
> > > +  /* FIXME taktemur/2019-04-23: What if there are multiple cctors?  */
> > 
> > Can such a situation arise?  If you know how it could but don't know
> > how to handle it then can we expand the comment.  If you don't think
> > such a situation could arise then lets delete this comment and add an
> > assertion below.
> > 
> 
> Such a situation can arise when there is a copy ctor that takes a
> non-const &T and another that takes a const &T.  I'm planning to
> add the example below to the comment:
> 
>   /* FIXME taktemur/2019-04-23: What if there are multiple copy ctors?
>      E.g.:
>        class C {
>        public:
>          C (C &c) { ... }
>          C (const C &c) { ... }
>        };
>   */

That would be great, I find information like this in comments very
helpful so thank you.

> 
> The correct version shall be selected based on the type of the argument,
> but I don't know how to express that in GDB.
> 
> 
> > >    for (fieldnum = 0; fieldnum < TYPE_NFN_FIELDS (type); fieldnum++)
> > >      for (fieldelem = 0; fieldelem < TYPE_FN_FIELDLIST_LENGTH (type, fieldnum);
> > >  	 fieldelem++)
> > > @@ -1282,49 +1415,53 @@ gnuv3_pass_by_reference (struct type *type)
> > >  	const char *name = TYPE_FN_FIELDLIST_NAME (type, fieldnum);
> > >  	struct type *fieldtype = TYPE_FN_FIELD_TYPE (fn, fieldelem);
> > >
> > > -	/* If this function is marked as artificial, it is compiler-generated,
> > > -	   and we assume it is trivial.  */
> > > -	if (TYPE_FN_FIELD_ARTIFICIAL (fn, fieldelem))
> > > -	  continue;
> > > -
> > > -	/* If we've found a destructor, we must pass this by reference.  */
> > >  	if (name[0] == '~')
> > >  	  {
> > > -	    info.trivially_copyable = false;
> > > -	    return info;
> > > +	    /* We've found a destructor.  */
> > > +	    dtor_def = get_def_style (fn, fieldelem);
> > > +	    info.dtor_name = TYPE_FN_FIELD_PHYSNAME (fn, fieldelem);
> > 
> > Maybe we should have an error or at least a warning if
> > 'info.dtor_name' is not nullptr before this assignment - this would
> > indicate multiple destructors, which seems weird, right?
> > 
> 
> I believe the 'info.dtor_name' field can be nullptr even if a destructor
> definition exists, if the destructor is inlined and hence its code does
> not exist in the object file.  (Such a case also requires special treatment
> and is handled at the client side, in gdb/infcall.c in part 7/8 of this patch.)
> So, I thought I should gdb_assert on 'dtor_def == DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE'
> instead.  Is this OK?
> 
> > > +	    if (is_copy_constructor_type (type, fieldtype))
> > >  	      {
> > > -		struct type *arg_target_type
> > > -		  = check_typedef (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (arg_type));
> > > -		if (class_types_same_p (arg_target_type, type))
> > > -		  {
> > > -		    info.trivially_copyable = false;
> > > -		    return info;
> > > -		  }
> > > +		cctor_def = get_def_style (fn, fieldelem);
> > > +		info.cctor_name = TYPE_FN_FIELD_PHYSNAME (fn, fieldelem);
> > 
> > This would be where we assert that we only have one cctor I think...
> > 
> 
> Similarly, I'm planning to assert 'cctor_def == DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE'.
>

OK, that sounds reasonable.

If nobody else reviews the remaining patches in this series then I
will get around to them soon I hope.  I've been crazy busy the last
couple of weeks and am still trying to catch up on everything.

Thanks,
Andrew

> > > +  bool cctor_implicitly_deleted
> > > +    =  mctor_def != DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE
> > > +    && cctor_def == DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE;
> > 
> > I think this should be parenthesised like this:
> > 
> >   bool cctor_implicitly_deleted
> >     =  (mctor_def != DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE
> >         && cctor_def == DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE);
> > 
> > My reference is:
> >   https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Formatting
> > 
> 
> Thanks for the pointer.  I'll address these formatting issues in the next update.
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Andrew
> 
> Regards,
> -Baris
> 
> Intel Deutschland GmbH
> Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
> Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
> Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Gary Kershaw
> Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
> Registered Office: Munich
> Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928
>

* On Sunday, June 23, 2019 9:24 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> * Aktemur, Tankut Baris <tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com> [2019-05-31 13:55:58 +0000]:
> 
> > > > Walk through a given type to collect information about whether the type
> > > > is copy constructible, destructible, trivially copyable, trivially copy
> > > > constructible, trivially destructible.  The previous algorithm returned
> > > > only a boolean result about whether the type is trivially copyable.
> > > > This patch computes more info.  Additionally, it utilizes DWARF attributes
> > > > that were previously not taken into account; namely,
> > > > DW_AT_deleted, DW_AT_defaulted, and DW_AT_calling_convention.
> > >
> > > I'm basically happy with this, a few formatting issues and questions
> > > about comments below.
> > >
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > > >
> > > > +  /* FIXME taktemur/2019-04-23: What if there are multiple cctors?  */
> > >
> > > Can such a situation arise?  If you know how it could but don't know
> > > how to handle it then can we expand the comment.  If you don't think
> > > such a situation could arise then lets delete this comment and add an
> > > assertion below.
> > >
> >
> > Such a situation can arise when there is a copy ctor that takes a
> > non-const &T and another that takes a const &T.  I'm planning to
> > add the example below to the comment:
> >
> >   /* FIXME taktemur/2019-04-23: What if there are multiple copy ctors?
> >      E.g.:
> >        class C {
> >        public:
> >          C (C &c) { ... }
> >          C (const C &c) { ... }
> >        };
> >   */
> 
> That would be great, I find information like this in comments very
> helpful so thank you.
> 
> >
> > The correct version shall be selected based on the type of the argument,
> > but I don't know how to express that in GDB.
> >
> >
> > > >    for (fieldnum = 0; fieldnum < TYPE_NFN_FIELDS (type); fieldnum++)
> > > >      for (fieldelem = 0; fieldelem < TYPE_FN_FIELDLIST_LENGTH (type, fieldnum);
> > > >  	 fieldelem++)
> > > > @@ -1282,49 +1415,53 @@ gnuv3_pass_by_reference (struct type *type)
> > > >  	const char *name = TYPE_FN_FIELDLIST_NAME (type, fieldnum);
> > > >  	struct type *fieldtype = TYPE_FN_FIELD_TYPE (fn, fieldelem);
> > > >
> > > > -	/* If this function is marked as artificial, it is compiler-generated,
> > > > -	   and we assume it is trivial.  */
> > > > -	if (TYPE_FN_FIELD_ARTIFICIAL (fn, fieldelem))
> > > > -	  continue;
> > > > -
> > > > -	/* If we've found a destructor, we must pass this by reference.  */
> > > >  	if (name[0] == '~')
> > > >  	  {
> > > > -	    info.trivially_copyable = false;
> > > > -	    return info;
> > > > +	    /* We've found a destructor.  */
> > > > +	    dtor_def = get_def_style (fn, fieldelem);
> > > > +	    info.dtor_name = TYPE_FN_FIELD_PHYSNAME (fn, fieldelem);
> > >
> > > Maybe we should have an error or at least a warning if
> > > 'info.dtor_name' is not nullptr before this assignment - this would
> > > indicate multiple destructors, which seems weird, right?
> > >
> >
> > I believe the 'info.dtor_name' field can be nullptr even if a destructor
> > definition exists, if the destructor is inlined and hence its code does
> > not exist in the object file.  (Such a case also requires special treatment
> > and is handled at the client side, in gdb/infcall.c in part 7/8 of this patch.)
> > So, I thought I should gdb_assert on 'dtor_def == DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE'
> > instead.  Is this OK?
> >
> > > > +	    if (is_copy_constructor_type (type, fieldtype))
> > > >  	      {
> > > > -		struct type *arg_target_type
> > > > -		  = check_typedef (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (arg_type));
> > > > -		if (class_types_same_p (arg_target_type, type))
> > > > -		  {
> > > > -		    info.trivially_copyable = false;
> > > > -		    return info;
> > > > -		  }
> > > > +		cctor_def = get_def_style (fn, fieldelem);
> > > > +		info.cctor_name = TYPE_FN_FIELD_PHYSNAME (fn, fieldelem);
> > >
> > > This would be where we assert that we only have one cctor I think...
> > >
> >
> > Similarly, I'm planning to assert 'cctor_def == DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE'.
> >
> 
> OK, that sounds reasonable.
> 
> If nobody else reviews the remaining patches in this series then I
> will get around to them soon I hope.  I've been crazy busy the last
> couple of weeks and am still trying to catch up on everything.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>

Thank you! The remaining patches have not received a review so far.
I'll submit today a v2 of the series in which your comments have been addressed
in patches 1-3.

-Baris
 
> > > > +  bool cctor_implicitly_deleted
> > > > +    =  mctor_def != DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE
> > > > +    && cctor_def == DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE;
> > >
> > > I think this should be parenthesised like this:
> > >
> > >   bool cctor_implicitly_deleted
> > >     =  (mctor_def != DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE
> > >         && cctor_def == DOES_NOT_EXIST_IN_SOURCE);
> > >
> > > My reference is:
> > >   https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Formatting
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the pointer.  I'll address these formatting issues in the next update.
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Andrew
> >
> > Regards,
> > -Baris
> >
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Gary Kershaw
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928