<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Manman Ren <<a href="mailto:mren@apple.com">mren@apple.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><br></div>Hi Andy,<div><br></div><div>This is causing a bot failure, do you know what is wrong?</div><div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yep. Fairly obvious pasto. A fix will be in shortly.</div><div>-Andy</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><span style="font-family: 'Courier New', courier, monotype, monospace; ">******************** TEST 'LLVM :: DebugInfo/X86/misched-dbg-value.ll' FAILED ********************</span></div><div><pre style="font-family: 'Courier New', courier, monotype, monospace;"><span class="stdout">Script:
--
/build/buildbot/osu8/llvm-x86_64-linux-vg_leak/llvm/Debug+Asserts/bin/llc /build/buildbot/osu8/llvm-x86_64-linux-vg_leak/llvm/test/DebugInfo/X86/misched-dbg-value.ll -mtriple=x86_64-apple-darwin -filetype=obj -o /build/buildbot/osu8/llvm-x86_64-linux-vg_leak/llvm/test/DebugInfo/X86/Output/misched-dbg-value.ll.tmp -enable-misched
/build/buildbot/osu8/llvm-x86_64-linux-vg_leak/llvm/Debug+Asserts/bin/llvm-dwarfdump /build/buildbot/osu8/llvm-x86_64-linux-vg_leak/llvm/test/DebugInfo/X86/Output/misched-dbg-value.ll.tmp | /build/buildbot/osu8/llvm-x86_64-linux-vg_leak/llvm/Debug+Asserts/bin/FileCheck /build/buildbot/osu8/llvm-x86_64-linux-vg_leak/llvm/test/DebugInfo/X86/misched-dbg-value.ll
--
Exit Code: 123
Command Output (stderr):
--
==24760== 192 (176 direct, 16 indirect) bytes in 2 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 12 of 13
==24760== at 0x4C29C97: operator new(unsigned long) (vg_replace_malloc.c:298)
==24760== by 0x11BEE68: llvm::TargetInstrInfo::CreateTargetMIHazardRecognizer(llvm::InstrItineraryData const*, llvm::ScheduleDAG const*) const (TargetInstrInfo.cpp:558)
==24760== by 0x10E1283: (anonymous namespace)::ConvergingScheduler::initialize(llvm::ScheduleDAGMI*) (MachineScheduler.cpp:1238)
==24760== by 0x10DEB82: llvm::ScheduleDAGMI::schedule() (MachineScheduler.cpp:521)
==24760== by 0x10DD9AC: (anonymous namespace)::MachineScheduler::runOnMachineFunction(llvm::MachineFunction&) (MachineScheduler.cpp:274)
==24760== by 0x10AC5FC: llvm::MachineFunctionPass::runOnFunction(llvm::Function&) (MachineFunctionPass.cpp:33)
==24760== by 0x151830C: llvm::FPPassManager::runOnFunction(llvm::Function&) (PassManager.cpp:1530)
==24760== by 0x15184FD: llvm::FPPassManager::runOnModule(llvm::Module&) (PassManager.cpp:1550)
==24760== by 0x151885A: llvm::MPPassManager::runOnModule(llvm::Module&) (PassManager.cpp:1608)
==24760== by 0x1518E5C: llvm::PassManagerImpl::run(llvm::Module&) (PassManager.cpp:1703)
==24760== by 0x151906E: llvm::PassManager::run(llvm::Module&) (PassManager.cpp:1738)
==24760== by 0x853B10: compileModule(char**, llvm::LLVMContext&) (llc.cpp:376)
==24760==
==24760== 192 (176 direct, 16 indirect) bytes in 2 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 13 of 13
==24760== at 0x4C29C97: operator new(unsigned long) (vg_replace_malloc.c:298)
==24760== by 0x11BEE68: llvm::TargetInstrInfo::CreateTargetMIHazardRecognizer(llvm::InstrItineraryData const*, llvm::ScheduleDAG const*) const (TargetInstrInfo.cpp:558)
==24760== by 0x10E12C3: (anonymous namespace)::ConvergingScheduler::initialize(llvm::ScheduleDAGMI*) (MachineScheduler.cpp:1239)
==24760== by 0x10DEB82: llvm::ScheduleDAGMI::schedule() (MachineScheduler.cpp:521)
==24760== by 0x10DD9AC: (anonymous namespace)::MachineScheduler::runOnMachineFunction(llvm::MachineFunction&) (MachineScheduler.cpp:274)
==24760== by 0x10AC5FC: llvm::MachineFunctionPass::runOnFunction(llvm::Function&) (MachineFunctionPass.cpp:33)
==24760== by 0x151830C: llvm::FPPassManager::runOnFunction(llvm::Function&) (PassManager.cpp:1530)
==24760== by 0x15184FD: llvm::FPPassManager::runOnModule(llvm::Module&) (PassManager.cpp:1550)
==24760== by 0x151885A: llvm::MPPassManager::runOnModule(llvm::Module&) (PassManager.cpp:1608)
==24760== by 0x1518E5C: llvm::PassManagerImpl::run(llvm::Module&) (PassManager.cpp:1703)
==24760== by 0x151906E: llvm::PassManager::run(llvm::Module&) (PassManager.cpp:1738)
==24760== by 0x853B10: compileModule(char**, llvm::LLVMContext&) (llc.cpp:376)</span></pre><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On Feb 13, 2013, at 9:23 AM, Eric Christopher <<a href="mailto:echristo@gmail.com">echristo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Andrew Trick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:atrick@apple.com" target="_blank">atrick@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div class="im"><br><div><div>On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:00 PM, Eric Christopher <<a href="mailto:echristo@gmail.com" target="_blank">echristo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></blockquote></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> Any reason why these aren't going into the pass impl?</div>
</div></blockquote></div>They can be put in the pass impl. Is there an advantage of one vs. the other?<div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>*shrug* Everything else in the implementation of the pass is in there... I'm at a loss on occasion why some things have pImpls. :)</div>
<div> </div></div></blockquote><br></div></div><div>Private non-inline stuff should be in the pImpl. Sorry I missed that when I reviewed the diff.</div><div><br></div><div>The MI sched specific test case is needed to hit this assertion. It invalidates LDV, which would then rerun on machine code sans-DGB_VALUEs. Not good.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Aha, that makes everything make a lot more sense.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks Andy.</div><div><br></div><div>-eric </div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>