[PATCH] D89500: Fix the error message with -fbasic-block-sections=list=<filename>

[Fāng-ruì Sòng via cfe-commits]

It is rare to report an error in BackendUtil.cpp . So I checked the
other Diags.Report instance and noticed that -split-dwarf-file a.dwo
-split-dwarf-output a.dwo (when a.dwo is not writable) suppresses the
output. So there is no reason that -fbasic-block-sections=list= should
not follow the convention.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 8:18 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 8:08 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> I checked chmod -w a.dwo; clang -cc1 -debug-info-kind=limited
>> -dwarf-version=4 -split-dwarf-file a.dwo -split-dwarf-output a.dwo
>> -emit-obj -o - split-debug-output.c
>> which suppresses the output, so -fbasic-block-sections=list= should
>> follow the convention as well.
>
>
> I missed a step as to the inference between the split-dwarf example and the fbasic-block-sections example. Could you explain further what the split-dwarf test was intending to demonstrate/how it relates to the -fbasic-block-sections example?
>
>>
>>
>> Sent https://reviews.llvm.org/D90815
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:26 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 2:21 PM Sriraman Tallam via cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 2:14 PM David Blaikie via Phabricator <reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> dblaikie added a comment.
>> >>>
>> >>> @tmsriram ping on the follow-up here
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I checked in the patch that emits llvm instead of obj which spews garbage to the terminal as I wasn't redirecting it to /dev/null.  The test seems stable. Is there a particular concern? Sorry if I missed somethig here?
>> >
>> >
>> > Oh, sorry - I missed your emails on-list, as they didn't end up on the review when viewed via Phabricator - that's most of the confusion. My mistake.
>> >
>> > Going back over it though - Yep, I totally missed the "ERROR" check line at the end (maybe worth an empty line between it and the UNIQUE check lines - as there's a break between UNIQUE and other lines (maybe the BB_* ones could use breaks too)).
>> >
>> > Though I'm still curious: Why is this command producing any object/binary output if it has produced an error message? That seems incorrect to me (generally if there's been any error, there wouldn't be output).
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 宋方睿



-- 
宋方睿