[llvm] r185966 - Reapply an improved version of r180816/180817.

[Adrian Prantl]

I'm on it, thanks!

On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote:

> Hi Adrian,
> 
> Your commit breaks a buildbot:
> http://lab.llvm.org:8013/builders/clang-x86_64-darwin11-nobootstrap-RAincremental/builds/4150/
> ******************** TEST 'Clang :: debuginfo-tests/aggregate-indirect-arg.cpp' FAILED ********************
> Script:
> --
> /Users/buildslave/zorg/buildbot/smooshlab/slave-0.8/build.clang-x86_64-darwin11-nobootstrap-RAincremental/clang-build/Release+Asserts/bin/clang -ccc-cxx  -O0 -g /Users/buildslave/zorg/buildbot/smooshlab/slave-0.8/build.clang-x86_64-darwin11-nobootstrap-RAincremental/clang.src/test/debuginfo-tests/aggregate-indirect-arg.cpp -c -o /Users/buildslave/zorg/buildbot/smooshlab/slave-0.8/build.clang-x86_64-darwin11-nobootstrap-RAincremental/clang-build/tools/clang/test/debuginfo-tests/Output/aggregate-indirect-arg.cpp.tmp.o
> /Users/buildslave/zorg/buildbot/smooshlab/slave-0.8/build.clang-x86_64-darwin11-nobootstrap-RAincremental/clang-build/Release+Asserts/bin/clang -ccc-cxx  /Users/buildslave/zorg/buildbot/smooshlab/slave-0.8/build.clang-x86_64-darwin11-nobootstrap-RAincremental/clang-build/tools/clang/test/debuginfo-tests/Output/aggregate-indirect-arg.cpp.tmp.o -o /Users/buildslave/zorg/buildbot/smooshlab/slave-0.8/build.clang-x86_64-darwin11-nobootstrap-RAincremental/clang-build/tools/clang/test/debuginfo-tests/Output/aggregate-indirect-arg.cpp.tmp.out
> /Users/buildslave/zorg/buildbot/smooshlab/slave-0.8/build.clang-x86_64-darwin11-nobootstrap-RAincremental/llvm/utils/test_debuginfo.pl  /Users/buildslave/zorg/buildbot/smooshlab/slave-0.8/build.clang-x86_64-darwin11-nobootstrap-RAincremental/clang.src/test/debuginfo-tests/aggregate-indirect-arg.cpp /Users/buildslave/zorg/buildbot/smooshlab/slave-0.8/build.clang-x86_64-darwin11-nobootstrap-RAincremental/clang-build/tools/clang/test/debuginfo-tests/Output/aggregate-indirect-arg.cpp.tmp.out
> --
> Exit Code: 1
> Command Output (stderr):
> --
> /Users/buildslave/zorg/buildbot/smooshlab/slave-0.8/build.clang-x86_64-darwin11-nobootstrap-RAincremental/clang.src/test/debuginfo-tests/aggregate-indirect-arg.cpp:8:11: error: expected string not found in input
> // CHECK: $1 = {
>           ^
> /Users/buildslave/zorg/buildbot/smooshlab/slave-0.8/build.clang-x86_64-darwin11-nobootstrap-RAincremental/clang-build/tools/clang/test/debuginfo-tests/Output/aggregate-indirect-arg.cpp.gdb.output:1:1: note: scanning from here
> Reading symbols for shared libraries ... done
> ^
> /Users/buildslave/zorg/buildbot/smooshlab/slave-0.8/build.clang-x86_64-darwin11-nobootstrap-RAincremental/clang-build/tools/clang/test/debuginfo-tests/Output/aggregate-indirect-arg.cpp.gdb.output:2:9: note: possible intended match here
> Breakpoint 1 at 0x100000d5c: file /Users/buildslave/zorg/buildbot/smooshlab/slave-0.8/build.clang-x86_64-darwin11-nobootstrap-RAincremental/clang.src/test/debuginfo-tests/aggregate-indirect-arg.cpp, line 22.
>         ^
> --
> 
> Could you have a look please?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Quentin
> 
> On Jul 9, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:
>>> Hey Eric,
>>> 
>>> thanks for the comments!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> bool LDVImpl::handleDebugValue(MachineInstr *MI, SlotIndex Idx) {
>>>>>  // DBG_VALUE loc, offset, variable
>>>>>  if (MI->getNumOperands() != 3 ||
>>>>> -      !MI->getOperand(1).isImm() || !MI->getOperand(2).isMetadata()) {
>>>>> +      !(MI->getOperand(1).isReg() || MI->getOperand(1).isImm()) ||
>>>>> +      !MI->getOperand(2).isMetadata()) {
>>>> 
>>>> Mind commenting this a bit more on what we aren't handling?
>>> 
>>> I’m not sure if I can come up with a comprehensive list of cases that are not handled. One case that I can think of would be a FrameIndex DBG_VALUE, but I’m not even sure whether they can even be introduced before LDV is run.
>>> 
>> 
>> Yeah, I'm not positive either. It just seemed odd like it's checking
>> for the validity of the instruction at all instead of some case that
>> it's not handling.
>> 
>>> 
>>>>> -  FuncInfo.ArgDbgValues.push_back(
>>>>> +    FuncInfo.ArgDbgValues.push_back(BuildMI(MF, getCurDebugLoc(),
>>>>> +                                            TII->get(TargetOpcode::DBG_VALUE),
>>>>> +                                            /* IsIndirect */ Offset != 0,
>>>>> +                                            Op->getReg(), Offset, Variable));
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Curious about the "Offset != 0" since we could have a 0 offset in the
>>>> dbg.value intrinsic coming in yes?
>>> 
>>> I agree! I’m gradually pushing the problem up layer by layer. Currently this is just a more explicit notation of the status quo. I will add in a comment.
>>> 
>> 
>> Thanks :)
>> 
>> -eric
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>