Skip to content

[LLDB] Add unary operators Dereference and AddressOf to DIL #134428

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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 6 commits into from
Apr 29, 2025
Merged

[LLDB] Add unary operators Dereference and AddressOf to DIL #134428

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
58c4f08
Add unary operators Dereference and AddressOf
kuilpd Apr 4, 2025
36d4f95
Fix parsing, remove dereferencing, add unit tests
kuilpd Apr 7, 2025
d7fdf3f
Remove unit tests, add Python tests
kuilpd Apr 8, 2025
336d59f
Remove array conversion, cut down evaluation of & and *.
kuilpd Apr 10, 2025
8b63dfd
Rename rhs to operand, remove extra check and return `ValueObject::De…
kuilpd Apr 25, 2025
b183a3b
Remove a pointer to void check
kuilpd Apr 28, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 3 additions & 1 deletion lldb/docs/dil-expr-lang.ebnf
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -3,7 +3,9 @@
(* This is currently a subset of the final DIL Language, matching the current
DIL implementation. *)

expression = primary_expression ;
expression = unary_expression ;

unary_expression = unary_operator primary_expression ;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Need to add just plain primary_expression -- we're not forcing all expressions to have unary ops -- could still be plain variable names.


primary_expression = id_expression
| "(" expression ")";
Expand Down
32 changes: 32 additions & 0 deletions lldb/include/lldb/ValueObject/DILAST.h
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -20,6 +20,13 @@ namespace lldb_private::dil {
enum class NodeKind {
eErrorNode,
eIdentifierNode,
eUnaryOpNode,
};

/// The Unary operators recognized by DIL.
enum class UnaryOpKind {
AddrOf, // "&"
Deref, // "*"
};

/// Forward declaration, for use in DIL AST nodes. Definition is at the very
Expand All @@ -44,6 +51,8 @@ class ASTNode {

virtual llvm::Expected<lldb::ValueObjectSP> Accept(Visitor *v) const = 0;

virtual bool is_rvalue() const { return false; }

uint32_t GetLocation() const { return m_location; }
NodeKind GetKind() const { return m_kind; }

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -81,6 +90,27 @@ class IdentifierNode : public ASTNode {
std::string m_name;
};

class UnaryOpNode : public ASTNode {
public:
UnaryOpNode(uint32_t location, UnaryOpKind kind, ASTNodeUP rhs)
: ASTNode(location, NodeKind::eUnaryOpNode), m_kind(kind),
m_rhs(std::move(rhs)) {}

llvm::Expected<lldb::ValueObjectSP> Accept(Visitor *v) const override;
bool is_rvalue() const override { return m_kind != UnaryOpKind::Deref; }

UnaryOpKind kind() const { return m_kind; }
ASTNode *rhs() const { return m_rhs.get(); }

static bool classof(const ASTNode *node) {
return node->GetKind() == NodeKind::eUnaryOpNode;
}

private:
UnaryOpKind m_kind;
ASTNodeUP m_rhs;
Copy link
Collaborator

@labath labath Apr 9, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's kinda weird to have the right side of a unary expression (and it would get particularly weird if we end up having a postfix ++ operator). Clang calls this Val or SubExpr, so maybe call this m_(sub_)expr?

};

/// This class contains one Visit method for each specialized type of
/// DIL AST node. The Visit methods are used to dispatch a DIL AST node to
/// the correct function in the DIL expression evaluator for evaluating that
Expand All @@ -90,6 +120,8 @@ class Visitor {
virtual ~Visitor() = default;
virtual llvm::Expected<lldb::ValueObjectSP>
Visit(const IdentifierNode *node) = 0;
virtual llvm::Expected<lldb::ValueObjectSP>
Visit(const UnaryOpNode *node) = 0;
};

} // namespace lldb_private::dil
Expand Down
29 changes: 29 additions & 0 deletions lldb/include/lldb/ValueObject/DILEval.h
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -38,6 +38,18 @@ lldb::ValueObjectSP LookupGlobalIdentifier(llvm::StringRef name_ref,
lldb::DynamicValueType use_dynamic,
CompilerType *scope_ptr = nullptr);

class FlowAnalysis {
public:
FlowAnalysis(bool address_of_is_pending)
: m_address_of_is_pending(address_of_is_pending) {}

bool AddressOfIsPending() const { return m_address_of_is_pending; }
void DiscardAddressOf() { m_address_of_is_pending = false; }

private:
bool m_address_of_is_pending;
};

class Interpreter : Visitor {
public:
Interpreter(lldb::TargetSP target, llvm::StringRef expr,
Expand All @@ -47,12 +59,29 @@ class Interpreter : Visitor {
llvm::Expected<lldb::ValueObjectSP> Evaluate(const ASTNode *node);

private:
llvm::Expected<lldb::ValueObjectSP>
EvaluateNode(const ASTNode *node, FlowAnalysis *flow = nullptr);

llvm::Expected<lldb::ValueObjectSP>
Visit(const IdentifierNode *node) override;
llvm::Expected<lldb::ValueObjectSP> Visit(const UnaryOpNode *node) override;

lldb::ValueObjectSP EvaluateDereference(lldb::ValueObjectSP rhs);

FlowAnalysis *flow_analysis() { return m_flow_analysis_chain.back(); }

// Used by the interpreter to create objects, perform casts, etc.
lldb::TargetSP m_target;
llvm::StringRef m_expr;
// Flow analysis chain represents the expression evaluation flow for the
// current code branch. Each node in the chain corresponds to an AST node,
// describing the semantics of the evaluation for it. Currently, flow analysis
// propagates the information about the pending address-of operator, so that
// combination of address-of and a subsequent dereference can be eliminated.
// End of the chain (i.e. `back()`) contains the flow analysis instance for
// the current node. It may be `nullptr` if no relevant information is
// available, the caller/user is supposed to check.
std::vector<FlowAnalysis *> m_flow_analysis_chain;
lldb::ValueObjectSP m_scope;
lldb::DynamicValueType m_default_dynamic;
std::shared_ptr<StackFrame> m_exe_ctx_scope;
Expand Down
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions lldb/include/lldb/ValueObject/DILLexer.h
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -24,11 +24,13 @@ namespace lldb_private::dil {
class Token {
public:
enum Kind {
amp,
coloncolon,
eof,
identifier,
l_paren,
r_paren,
star,
};

Token(Kind kind, std::string spelling, uint32_t start)
Expand Down
3 changes: 2 additions & 1 deletion lldb/include/lldb/ValueObject/DILParser.h
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ class DILDiagnosticError
m_detail(std::move(detail)) {}

DILDiagnosticError(llvm::StringRef expr, const std::string &message,
uint32_t loc, uint16_t err_len);
uint32_t loc, uint16_t err_len = 1);

std::unique_ptr<CloneableError> Clone() const override {
return std::make_unique<DILDiagnosticError>(m_detail);
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ class DILParser {
ASTNodeUP Run();

ASTNodeUP ParseExpression();
ASTNodeUP ParseUnaryExpression();
ASTNodeUP ParsePrimaryExpression();

std::string ParseNestedNameSpecifier();
Expand Down
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions lldb/source/ValueObject/DILAST.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -19,4 +19,8 @@ llvm::Expected<lldb::ValueObjectSP> IdentifierNode::Accept(Visitor *v) const {
return v->Visit(this);
}

llvm::Expected<lldb::ValueObjectSP> UnaryOpNode::Accept(Visitor *v) const {
return v->Visit(this);
}

} // namespace lldb_private::dil
139 changes: 136 additions & 3 deletions lldb/source/ValueObject/DILEval.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -18,6 +18,22 @@

namespace lldb_private::dil {

static lldb::ValueObjectSP
ArrayToPointerConversion(lldb::ValueObjectSP valobj,
std::shared_ptr<ExecutionContextScope> ctx) {
assert(valobj->IsArrayType() &&
"an argument to array-to-pointer conversion must be an array");

uint64_t addr = valobj->GetLoadAddress();
llvm::StringRef name = "result";
ExecutionContext exe_ctx;
ctx->CalculateExecutionContext(exe_ctx);
return ValueObject::CreateValueObjectFromAddress(
name, addr, exe_ctx,
valobj->GetCompilerType().GetArrayElementType(ctx.get()).GetPointerType(),
/* do_deref */ false);
}

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is an interesting question (and one that may deserve a PR of its own). For C, this makes sense, but I'm not sure if we want to do this for all languages. Also, the implementations assumes that an array is just a list of elements (i.e., that the address of the first array element is the same as the address of the array itself). This is true for C, but it may not be true for all languages that may want to support. I'm not sure what's the situation with Swift, but Go (which we don't support, but it makes a good point) has a first class "array slice" type, which is basically equivalent to llvm::ArrayRef -- under the hood it's a pointer+length pair. I think it'd be reasonable for Go's type system to claim that this is an array type, but you definitely couldn't get to the first element of the slice by reinterpret_casting the address of the slice.

Another problem here is that this ignores any data formatters the type may have. A user may have defined a synthetic child provider for the array type, and that provider may define (by providing a special $$dereference$$ child) what it wants to be the result "dereferencing" that object. By special-casing array types, you're subverting that behavior.

For these reasons, I think this logic should go into ValueObject::Dereference. There, we could either:

  • implement this logic directly (but without reinterpret_casting -- just do something roughly equivalent to GetChildAtIndex(0))
  • or delegate the operation to the type system in some way, so that it can define what exactly (if anything) does "dereferencing an array" mean for the language in question

@jimingham, @adrian-prantl, do you concur, or have anything to add here?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I concur. As a general rule, we want the evaluator to know as little as possible about how any operation is performed and delegate as much as possible to ValueObject methods.

The evaluator can't know anything about the language of the values it is operating on or it will either only work for C-backed ValueObjects or end up cluttered with "if C/C++/swift/go/future_language" code, which we really want to avoid. However, ValueObjects always know what type system their type comes from, and so they can naturally do the right thing for their language. So we should defer to them whenever we're doing any non-trivial operations.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not quite sure here, how would we go about implementing something like array to pointer conversion for C only (or any other language specific thing)? Do we just add an if (Language::LanguageIsCFamily() check ValueObject::Dereference or is there a better way to delegate it to TypeSystemClang?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well.. that's why I said it's an interesting question :)

I don't think it should be a language check. It should be plumbed into the type system code.. somehow. Currently ValueObject::Dereference calls GetCompilerType().GetChildCompilerTypeAtIndex (which eventually calls into the type system). That's kind of a problem because the type system doesn't actually know that it's being asked to dereference. Nonetheless, after it returns, it does tell you whether the returned child is a dereference of the parent (via the child_is_deref_of_parent by-ref result).

So, one option that might be acceptable (to me, others may disagree) would be to call this function on array types as well and then to check whether the result has the child_is_deref_of_parent flag set (we'd also need to change the TypeSystemClang implementation so that it sets the flag for the first element of the array).

The alternative would be to create a new function that explicitly tells the type system that you're trying to dereference the value, and then it can do pretty much anything it wants.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there any downside to the second option? It seems to me the general philosophy here is to have DIL do as little as possible and the type system as much as possible, since then we're asking the entity that actually knows what it is doing...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should I make a separate PR and merge this one as is?
As I understand, I should make a CompilerType::Dereference function that calls TypeSystem::Dereference that will be implemented in TypeSystemClang? And then call that function from ValueObject::Dereference instead of GetChildCompilerTypeAtIndex, but without type checks beforehand.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, that's definitely a job for a separate patch.

To answer Jim's question, I don't see a specific downside to the second option. Just some open questions. I don't exactly know what the interface of the new methods should be for instance (maybe it should not return a ValueObject since GetChildCompilerTypeAtIndex does not either). Ideally, I also wouldn't want too much code duplication between this and GetChildCompilerTypeAtIndex. But generally, yes, I think this would be better.

static lldb::ValueObjectSP LookupStaticIdentifier(
VariableList &variable_list, std::shared_ptr<StackFrame> exe_scope,
llvm::StringRef name_ref, llvm::StringRef unqualified_name) {
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -206,10 +222,25 @@ Interpreter::Interpreter(lldb::TargetSP target, llvm::StringRef expr,
: m_target(std::move(target)), m_expr(expr), m_default_dynamic(use_dynamic),
m_exe_ctx_scope(frame_sp) {}

llvm::Expected<lldb::ValueObjectSP> Interpreter::Evaluate(const ASTNode *node) {
llvm::Expected<lldb::ValueObjectSP> Interpreter::Evaluate(const ASTNode *tree) {
// Evaluate an AST.
auto value_or_error = EvaluateNode(tree);

// Return the computed result-or-error.
return value_or_error;
}

llvm::Expected<lldb::ValueObjectSP>
Interpreter::EvaluateNode(const ASTNode *node, FlowAnalysis *flow) {
// Set up the evaluation context for the current node.
m_flow_analysis_chain.push_back(flow);
// Traverse an AST pointed by the `node`.
return node->Accept(this);
auto value_or_error = node->Accept(this);
// Cleanup the context.
m_flow_analysis_chain.pop_back();
// Return the computed value-or-error. The caller is responsible for
// checking if an error occured during the evaluation.
return value_or_error;
}

llvm::Expected<lldb::ValueObjectSP>
Expand All @@ -232,4 +263,106 @@ Interpreter::Visit(const IdentifierNode *node) {
return identifier;
}

} // namespace lldb_private::dil
llvm::Expected<lldb::ValueObjectSP>
Interpreter::Visit(const UnaryOpNode *node) {
FlowAnalysis rhs_flow(
/* address_of_is_pending */ node->kind() == UnaryOpKind::AddrOf);

Status error;
auto rhs_or_err = EvaluateNode(node->rhs(), &rhs_flow);
if (!rhs_or_err) {
return rhs_or_err;
}
lldb::ValueObjectSP rhs = *rhs_or_err;

if (rhs->GetCompilerType().IsReferenceType()) {
rhs = rhs->Dereference(error);
if (error.Fail()) {
return llvm::make_error<DILDiagnosticError>(m_expr, error.AsCString(),
node->GetLocation());
}
}
CompilerType rhs_type = rhs->GetCompilerType();
switch (node->kind()) {
case UnaryOpKind::Deref: {
if (rhs_type.IsArrayType())
rhs = ArrayToPointerConversion(rhs, m_exe_ctx_scope);

lldb::ValueObjectSP dynamic_rhs = rhs->GetDynamicValue(m_default_dynamic);
if (dynamic_rhs)
rhs = dynamic_rhs;

if (rhs->GetCompilerType().IsPointerType())
return EvaluateDereference(rhs);
lldb::ValueObjectSP child_sp = rhs->Dereference(error);
if (error.Success())
rhs = child_sp;

return rhs;
}
case UnaryOpKind::AddrOf: {
if (node->rhs()->is_rvalue()) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While I don't feel as strongly about this as about the array dereference thing, I do think that (and I hope you start to see a theme here) we shouldn't need to track the rvalue-ness of an expression/value separately from the ValueObject itself. I think that a ValueObject should know whether it's able to take the address of itself, because people may invoke AddressOf directly. The current behavior of AddressOf doesn't make much sense to me -- it lets me chain AddressOf twice (but not three times!) -- but I think that's a bug that should be fixed inside that function, not worked around in the DIL (I'm not saying you should fix that here -- you can leave that to a separate patch, or even a separate person):

(lldb) script lldb.frame.FindVariable("y")
(int) y = 47
(lldb) script lldb.frame.FindVariable("y").AddressOf()
(int *) &y = 0x00007fffffffd7d0
(lldb) script lldb.frame.FindVariable("y").AddressOf().AddressOf()
(int **) &&y = 0x00007fffffffd7d0 # ???
(lldb) script lldb.frame.FindVariable("y").AddressOf().AddressOf().Dereference()
(int *) *&&y = 0x000000000000002f # :facepalm: 
(lldb) script lldb.frame.FindVariable("y").AddressOf().AddressOf().AddressOf()
No value
(lldb) script lldb.frame.FindVariable("y").AddressOf().AddressOf().AddressOf().GetError()
error: error: invalid value object

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

From what I could gather, the first one is ValueObject::AddressOf that creates a ValueObjectConstResult and fills in its address. The second one calls ValueObjectConstResultImpl::AddressOf that also creates ValueObjectConstResult but with no address this time (which makes sense for a const value), so the third one fails.
I'm guessing that the first ValueObjectConstResult is pretty much an implementation of a reference, so it has to have an address behind it so it can be dereferenced normally.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can believe that's what happens now, but I don't think that's what should happen. I think my snipped above shows pretty clearly that the behavior of double AddressOf is broken. Now, I claim that if we (you, I, someone) fix it do to something reasonable, one of these two things will happen:

  • The second AddressOf will return an error. At that point the DIL can just return that error and be done. I think this is the likeliest scenario.
  • The second AddressOf will actually return something reasonable. I don't know what would that be, but I suppose it could happen. If that happens, then I think the DIL should return for &(&(foo)) exactly the same value as you'd get for a double AddressOf call.

Notice that in both cases, the DIL implementation of & is the same: call AddressOf and return the result (be it an error or a valid object). And that's my point: the DIL shouldn't be second-guessing the implementation of AddressOf (or any other ValueObject function). I also think that fixing this isn't a prerequisite for this patch. I'll happily approve a PR which produces the same (broken) behavior as what we have right now. What I don't want is to build an rvalue tracking system to work around a ValueObject bug.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I created #137688 to address this issue.

std::string errMsg =
llvm::formatv("cannot take the address of an rvalue of type {0}",
rhs_type.TypeDescription());
return llvm::make_error<DILDiagnosticError>(m_expr, errMsg,
node->GetLocation());
}
if (rhs->IsBitfield()) {
return llvm::make_error<DILDiagnosticError>(
m_expr, "address of bit-field requested", node->GetLocation());
}
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What happens if you call AddressOf on a bitfield?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ValueObject::GetAddressOf returns LLDB_INVALID_ADDRESS for a bitfield without an error, so this check is to provide a meaningful error message.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The error object (in the by-ref return value) will contain the string <variable> doesn't have a valid address which, while slightly vague, is not all that bad. And current frame var does show it:

(lldb) v a.y 
(int:4) a.y = 7
(lldb) v &a.y
error: 'a.y' doesn't have a valid address

If you want to make the error more specific, I think you should do it inside AddressOf so that the improvements are available to all users.

// If the address-of operation wasn't cancelled during the evaluation of
// RHS (e.g. because of the address-of-a-dereference elision), apply it
// here.
if (rhs_flow.AddressOfIsPending()) {
Status error;
lldb::ValueObjectSP value = rhs->AddressOf(error);
if (error.Fail()) {
return llvm::make_error<DILDiagnosticError>(m_expr, error.AsCString(),
node->GetLocation());
}
return value;
}
return rhs;
}
}

// Unsupported/invalid operation.
return llvm::make_error<DILDiagnosticError>(
m_expr, "invalid ast: unexpected binary operator", node->GetLocation(),
1);
}

lldb::ValueObjectSP Interpreter::EvaluateDereference(lldb::ValueObjectSP rhs) {
// If rhs is a reference, dereference it first.
Status error;
if (rhs->GetCompilerType().IsReferenceType())
rhs = rhs->Dereference(error);

assert(rhs->GetCompilerType().IsPointerType() &&
"invalid ast: must be a pointer type");

if (rhs->GetDerefValobj())
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why doesn't this call Dereference()?

GetDerefValobj is currently unused. It was added in #87197, but without any context. Such a function might be useful in some situations, but I don't think this is one of them. You really should let the ValueObject tell you what is the result of dereferencing it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This checks if the value has already been dereferenced. The same check is also done in the beginning of Dereference(), but if we want to skip CreateValueObjectFromAddress as well, this is done separately beforehand.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, but that's exactly my problem with it. I don't see why the behavior of the DIL should depened on whether somebody has called Dereference() on this value before. If Dereference() returns a value (regardless of whether it has computed it just now, or if it returned a cached result), you should use that. If not, then maybe (and that's a very big MAYBE) you can do something on top of that, but I don't think the behavior should depend on whether the dereferenced object is cached or not.

return rhs->GetDerefValobj()->GetSP();

CompilerType pointer_type = rhs->GetCompilerType();
lldb::addr_t base_addr = rhs->GetValueAsUnsigned(0);

llvm::StringRef name = "result";
ExecutionContext exe_ctx(m_target.get(), false);
lldb::ValueObjectSP value = ValueObject::CreateValueObjectFromAddress(
name, base_addr, exe_ctx, pointer_type,
/* do_deref */ false);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is the comment style used in llvm

Suggested change
/* do_deref */ false);
/*do_deref=*/false);


// If we're in the address-of context, skip the dereference and cancel the
// pending address-of operation as well.
if (flow_analysis() && flow_analysis()->AddressOfIsPending()) {
flow_analysis()->DiscardAddressOf();
return value;
}

return value->Dereference(error);
}

} // namespace lldb_private::dil
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

missing newline

9 changes: 6 additions & 3 deletions lldb/source/ValueObject/DILLexer.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -19,6 +19,8 @@ namespace lldb_private::dil {

llvm::StringRef Token::GetTokenName(Kind kind) {
switch (kind) {
case Kind::amp:
return "amp";
case Kind::coloncolon:
return "coloncolon";
case Kind::eof:
Expand All @@ -29,6 +31,8 @@ llvm::StringRef Token::GetTokenName(Kind kind) {
return "l_paren";
case Kind::r_paren:
return "r_paren";
case Token::star:
return "star";
}
llvm_unreachable("Unknown token name");
}
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -82,9 +86,8 @@ llvm::Expected<Token> DILLexer::Lex(llvm::StringRef expr,
return Token(Token::identifier, maybe_word->str(), position);

constexpr std::pair<Token::Kind, const char *> operators[] = {
{Token::l_paren, "("},
{Token::r_paren, ")"},
{Token::coloncolon, "::"},
{Token::amp, "&"}, {Token::coloncolon, "::"}, {Token::l_paren, "("},
{Token::r_paren, ")"}, {Token::star, "*"},
};
for (auto [kind, str] : operators) {
if (remainder.consume_front(str))
Expand Down
32 changes: 31 additions & 1 deletion lldb/source/ValueObject/DILParser.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -82,7 +82,37 @@ ASTNodeUP DILParser::Run() {
// expression:
// primary_expression
//
ASTNodeUP DILParser::ParseExpression() { return ParsePrimaryExpression(); }
ASTNodeUP DILParser::ParseExpression() { return ParseUnaryExpression(); }

// Parse an unary_expression.
//
// unary_expression:
// unary_operator primary_expression
//
// unary_operator:
// "&"
// "*"
//
ASTNodeUP DILParser::ParseUnaryExpression() {
if (CurToken().IsOneOf({Token::amp, Token::star})) {
Token token = CurToken();
uint32_t loc = token.GetLocation();
m_dil_lexer.Advance();
auto rhs = ParsePrimaryExpression();
switch (token.GetKind()) {
case Token::star:
return std::make_unique<UnaryOpNode>(loc, UnaryOpKind::Deref,
std::move(rhs));
case Token::amp:
return std::make_unique<UnaryOpNode>(loc, UnaryOpKind::AddrOf,
std::move(rhs));

default:
llvm_unreachable("invalid token kind");
}
}
return ParsePrimaryExpression();
}

// Parse a primary_expression.
//
Expand Down