[llvm] r306529 - [X86] Correct dwarf unwind information in function epilogue

[Daniel Jasper via llvm-commits]

So you mean this failure one PPC:
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-ppc64be-linux/builds/3112/steps/64-bit%20check-asan/logs/stdio

FWIW, I think this is the same failure that we see on an internal test we
have. Would you be open to revert the patch until we can investigate the
exact cause?


On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Peter Smith via llvm-commits <
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> I've taken a look to see what affect this would have on CFI
> instructions for AArch64.
>
> My understanding concurs with Petar's explanation; that no extra CFI
> instructions will be added if the default values in MachineBasicBlock
> are used. I have a small concern that this assumption isn't really
> obvious from the comments in initializeCFIInfo which leaves open the
> possibility that someone else might inadvertently break this in the
> future, although I guess the tests should pick this up fairly quickly
> if it does.
>
> Peter
>
> On 29 June 2017 at 11:26, Petar Jovanovic via llvm-commits
> <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > + Violeta
> >
> >> So, this says "[X86]", but is it really X86-specific? there is a pretty
> >> huge set of changes to common CFI infrastructure that is used by PPC and
> >> AArch64 at least.
> >
> > It is x86-specific in the way that improvements made in this patch should
> > affect/improve x86 target only. Other arches can benefit if they make
> > similar changes.
> >
> >> It seems like these late passes (that run on all targets from what I can
> >> tell) *require* the new information to be set up in the basic block...
> >
> > Yes, but if the new information is not set (i.e. has default values), the
> > passes would not make any changes. An alternative is to run these passes
> for
> > selected target(s) only.
> >
> >> How does this work? Is this not a (serious) bug?
> >
> > Violeta has more description in https://reviews.llvm.org/D18046
> > It should not be a bug, more like a place where things can be improved
> for
> > other architectures too.
> >
> > So the passes should not be the problem. The only thing I am concerned is
> > that other common code changes may have side effects elsewhere. There is
> > a failure on PPC64 sanitizer buildbot and this change is on the blame
> list,
> > so that is being investigated along with the case Eli has reported.
> > _______________________________________________
> > llvm-commits mailing list
> > llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20170629/70415e9f/attachment.html>