Rewriting B:Deparse and Reintroducing B::DeparseTree

I will be giving a talk on B::DeparseTree and its use in a debugger Devel::Trepan at the upcoming YAPC 2018 in Glasgow. As a result, I have been completely refactoring B::DeparseTree and have a number of thoughts on it and B::Deparse.

Here are some of them. This first part focuses more about B::Deparse and how it could be (or in a sense is) being rewritten. The second part if I get around to writing it will be about the cool features of B::DeparseTree from an application.


As someone who make a lot of mistakes, I’ve long wanted to improve the precision of debugging and error reporting. Through Perlmonks, I was directed upon the idea of using the OP address as means to get more detailed information of where the program is. I was also pointed to B::Deparse.

At the time, I was elated. Perl5 uses a tree interpreter to run your Perl script. So what a decompiler does here to recreate the source code, and in in particular what B::Deparse does, is walk the B::OP tree, building up strings as it traverses. If you start from the root of the tree, you get everything. If instead you start from some other node, you get the text that this portion is responsible for. So I thought all I need to do is augment B::Deparse a little bit. True, but…

Deparse problems

The biggest issue with B::Deparse is it is one 6.5K line file. There are three test files, of which two of them are significant. The sheer number of tests are huge too - hundreds of tests in one, and a couple thousand in the other. The reason for the large number of tests in the latter test is a result of Perl having so many builtin functions - over 100 of them. Each of these is an opnode; and each function can be tried several times in different ways.

That there is such extensive testing is great, but given Perl testing’s default behavior of running all tests unconditionally, the slightest error meant that I’d see a spew of hundreds to thousands of lines or errors. (Does prove or Test::More have simple way to stop on the first failure?)

So it was important to get tests under control starting with some quick little unit tests, and bailing if those fail. Unit tests and B::Deparse?

When a program is big and monolithic, it is often not modular. When it is not modular, it’s hard to test it. That is most likely why both tests for B::Deparse that require a lot of setup.

The tests are also frail in the face of the formatting changes to B::Deparse. and can cause many if not all of the hundreds of tests to fail.

How we do better? I’ve mentioned unit tests. Later I’ll describe something else that eliminates the frailness of testing against a particular kind of formatting.


When B::Deparse fails, it’s can take a little bit of study to understand what it is talking about:

Here is an example:

Failed test 'Constants in a block' at t/20-deparse-small.t line 114. { '??'; 2 } }' doesn't match '(?^:^\s*\{\s*\s+\{\s+\'\?\?\?\'\;\s+2\s+)'

Is this clear to you what’s wrong? Line 114 is the line number of code that is reading data. What you really want to know is the line number of the data that it is reading. The best it does is give ‘Constants in a block’ so you can search for that.

I have split out the test data from the code so that I can reuse the code for different sets of data. For example I can run data common to all Perl versions then data specific a particular version of Perl, or data that covers some smaller but related set of issues, like those around subroutine and method calling.

The way I currently address the above is to show in addition to the above message, a diff of two compared texts.

Visually, it is easily to ignore differences in spacing to see what’s wrong.

Furthermore, when I hit an error the test program that failed is written out to disk. This way that test can be run in isolation to the other tests.

What is further needed though is to start grouping simple tests that trigger the use of a B::Deparse function and to split that those tests into a separate data file. For example there might be a test data file of tests for the method binop which handles for binary operators, another test data file for listop, which handles the list-like operators and so on.

Round trip tests

I have ameliorated somewhat of the difficulty in figuring out what went wrong when a test fails by improving the error message and writing out the test. However, there still is the problem that the tests are frail, even though a regular expression is used in comparison. We have this conundrum: if you want something that a person can easily detect the difference between the texts, you would compare using a string or a very simple regular expressions. But as you move to making tests less fragile and less subject to the whim of how B::Deparse format Perls, you move onto more complicated regular expressions. But this is harder to suss when there is a difference. So how do we do better?

We can avoid all of the frailty associated comparisons or pattern matching by doing round trip testing. In the Perl source code distribution there already are a number of Perl programs that check themselves when run. These are in Perl’s t directory. Some files in that are t/base/cond.t, or t/base.if.t.

So all that is needed is have B::Deparse compile and decompile these programs (the somewhat magical invocation is perl -MO=Deparse,sC ...), and write the decompiled result to file. We can then run Perl on the decompiled code and Perl will indicate whether the result is invalid. Edsgar Dijkstra’s quip about a test not proving correctness, but only demonstrating failure applies here. If the code doesn’t fail that doesn’t mean that it was deparsed correctly. Just that the running the program couldn’t find an error.

But when there is an error, Perl’s error message is often helpful in suggesting what decompiled incorrectly, especially when the error is a problem in Perl syntax. Even when the error is not a syntax error, the the decompilation error and the run-time error are generally close.

By inspecting the resulting file, I can usually see what’s wrong. And I have original source to compare against if the problem was not apparent.

The need for modularity

Tracking changes across Perl Versions

Currently B::Deparse is bundled with Perl and that means that the code that comes with Perl only needs to be concerned with that version.

Although it is true that you’ll find tests on the Perl versions like this:

$self->{'hints'} &= 0xFF if $] < 5.009;

in reality the code generally cannot be used by from another major Perl version release.

Here are some of the error messages I got when I tried to use the Perl 5.26.2 version of B::Deparse from Perl 5.24.4:

"OPpSPLIT_ASSIGN" is not exported by the B module
"OPpSPLIT_LEX" is not exported by the B module

So how would you understand how the OP tree has changed between in 5.24.4 and 5.26.2 that requires changes in the way B::Deparse works? Well, you could use either a file or git diff between two files in each of the released versions. And/or you could use that with git commits or ChangeLog entries. Depending on what changed, this might not be so bad, but generally I find it tedious.

What you want is to do is separate each change into one of three categories:

  1. Bug fixes in the newer version would also be beneficial in the older version
  2. Nonfunctional, but stylistic changes
  3. Changes that reflect real changes between versions and so the two sets of code need be kept separately

If the program were reorganized and modular, changes between versions and why would be more apparent. As an example of how this might look in Perl, I’ll show how I’ve done this in Python. Suppose you want to now which opcodes are different between Python 3.4 and 3.5. Well, look at this.

And how does that effect decompilation? That’s a harder question to answer simply, but that too to some degree of success has been isolated in code. For the semantic tree interpretation routines changes between versions are isolated here.

The how-to-extend problem?

I wanted to extend B::Deparse so I can use it at run time to determine my position. So how do I do this?

Given that B::Deparse isn’t all modular and is a single file, I started out in the most obvious way by copying the file and modifying it. Given my lack of understanding of how B::Deparse worked, this was extremely expedient and probably unavoidable. However very quickly I realized that it just doesn’t scale, and that I’d have to modularize the code. have spent a good deal time trying to refactor the code at least in the context of my new feature.

I’m close to having this finished. This code could be used as the basis for a rewritten B::Deparse.

Next are some cool features of the new code that could be used in B::Deparse.

Table-driven opnodes

In trying to use and modularize this code, I see there is a lot of repetition in subroutine parsing routines.

Compare this:

sub pp_die { listop(@_, "die") }
sub pp_each { unop(@_, "each") }
sub pp_egrent { baseop(@_, "endgrent") }


'die'        => 'listop',
'each'       => 'unop',
'egrent'     => ['baseop', 'endgrent'],

Was it obvious to you when looking at the subroutine call, that the name “egrent” got converted to “endgrent” which didn’t happen in other shown entries?

Having mappings from PP opnode to function makes it easier to customize the entries as required as the Perl version varies. In some versions, some ops we need to surround an the text from an operation with a “my”, while in other versions that is not the case. It is clearer and simpler just to change table entries than it is to muck with OO lookup or doing subroutine assignments.

Format-spec driven fragment creation

How B::Deparse works is conceptually simple: it walks the optree building and combining string fragments at node from the nodes’ children. When you return from root or top node after walking the tree, you have a string representing the entire function or module that the root represents.

However understanding what goes on inside a given node, is very haphazard. So if you have a bug somewhere, figuring out where there was a problem and why is difficult.

This kind of thing you may have already encountered in a different guise, and a good solution to that problem applies here. Imagine you are trying to create a nicely formatted report with lots of data values. You can try combining strings together interspersed with calls to conversion routines to different data items.

Instead many developers use some sort of format specifiers in a template. That’s a good solution here.

Swapping out Node and Syntax tree for String-oriented routines.

The focus of code right now has been for handling this new fragment deparsing feature. However I believe B::DeparseTree would be a good replacement for B::Deparse because of its modularity, and ease with which you can see what’s going on. The template specifiers assists separating traversing code from building string, however it should be noted that B::Deparse could have done this too, simply by using sprintf more often.


Are you aware that there is currently an additional source of testing for B::Deparse? Within the perl distribution, if you do

cd t; ./TEST -deparse

it will try to run each of the 2000 or so test scripts through Deparse before executing them, with around 200 scripts listed in Porting/deparse-skips.txt currently expected to fail.

Leave a comment

About rockyb

user-pic I blog about Perl.