From 3cb5c6a3e832935610cb483e622407452bf5c65b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Steve Fink Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:44:21 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Bug 1259850 - Handle D4 destructors, r=terrence MozReview-Commit-ID: 1hArAcAxvZV --HG-- extra : rebase_source : d9d65df85ac312bab022847843d4b75b25ecd55e --- .../devtools/rootAnalysis/computeCallgraph.js | 40 +++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/js/src/devtools/rootAnalysis/computeCallgraph.js b/js/src/devtools/rootAnalysis/computeCallgraph.js index 59c7944fc708..ade5f26f0600 100644 --- a/js/src/devtools/rootAnalysis/computeCallgraph.js +++ b/js/src/devtools/rootAnalysis/computeCallgraph.js @@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ function process(functionName, functionBodies) // Bug 1056410: Oh joy. GCC does something even funkier internally, // where it generates calls to ~Foo() but a body for ~Foo(int32) even // though it uses the same mangled name for both. So we need to add a - // synthetic edge from the former to the latter. + // synthetic edge from ~Foo() -> ~Foo(int32). // // inChargeXTor will have the (int32). if (functionName.indexOf("::~") > 0) { @@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ function process(functionName, functionBodies) // D1 # complete object destructor // D2 # base object destructor // - // In actual practice, I have observed a C4 constructor generated by gcc + // In actual practice, I have observed C4 and D4 xtors generated by gcc // 4.9.3 (but not 4.7.3). The gcc source code says: // // /* This is the old-style "[unified]" constructor. @@ -398,23 +398,29 @@ function process(functionName, functionBodies) // it from the clones in order to share code and save space. */ // // Unfortunately, that "call... from the clones" does not seem to appear in - // the CFG we get from GCC. So if we see a C4 constructor, inject an edge - // to it from C1, C2, and C3. (Note that C3 isn't even used in current GCC, - // but add the edge anyway just in case.) - if (functionName.indexOf("C4E") != -1) { + // the CFG we get from GCC. So if we see a C4 constructor or D4 destructor, + // inject an edge to it from C1, C2, and C3 (or D1, D2, and D3). (Note that + // C3 isn't even used in current GCC, but add the edge anyway just in + // case.) + if (functionName.indexOf("C4E") != -1 || functionName.indexOf("D4Ev") != -1) { var [ mangled, unmangled ] = splitFunction(functionName); // E terminates the method name (and precedes the method parameters). - if (mangled.indexOf("C4E") != -1) { - // If "C4E" shows up in the mangled name for another reason, this - // will create bogus edges in the callgraph. But that shouldn't - // matter too much, and is somewhat difficult to avoid, so we will - // live with it. - var C1 = mangled.replace("C4E", "C1E"); - var C2 = mangled.replace("C4E", "C2E"); - var C3 = mangled.replace("C4E", "C3E"); - print("D " + memo(C1) + " " + memo(mangled)); - print("D " + memo(C2) + " " + memo(mangled)); - print("D " + memo(C3) + " " + memo(mangled)); + // If eg "C4E" shows up in the mangled name for another reason, this + // will create bogus edges in the callgraph. But will affect little and + // is somewhat difficult to avoid, so we will live with it. + for (let [synthetic, variant] of [['C4E', 'C1E'], + ['C4E', 'C2E'], + ['C4E', 'C3E'], + ['D4Ev', 'D1Ev'], + ['D4Ev', 'D2Ev'], + ['D4Ev', 'D3Ev']]) + { + if (mangled.indexOf(synthetic) == -1) + continue; + + let variant_mangled = mangled.replace(synthetic, variant); + let variant_full = variant_mangled + "$" + unmangled; + print("D " + memo(variant_full) + " " + memo(functionName)); } } }