[PATCH] D128830: [Pipelines] Introduce DAE after ArgumentPromotion
David Blaikie via Phabricator via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Aug 24 09:32:46 PDT 2022
dblaikie added a comment.
In D128830#3745031 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128830#3745031>, @Michael137 wrote:
> FYI, this broke the LLDB build bot: https://green.lab.llvm.org/green/view/LLDB/job/lldb-cmake/46324/execution/node/74/log/
>
> Looks like we're testing that inlined unused parameters display correctly...
>
> AssertionError: '(void *) unused1 = <no location, value may have been optimized out>' not found in '(void *) unused1 = 0x000000016fdff4d0\n'
>
> But with this patch DWARF contains this extra entry for the unused parameter:
>
> 0x00000045: DW_TAG_formal_parameter
> DW_AT_location (0x00000000:
> [0x0000000100003f1c, 0x0000000100003f20): DW_OP_reg0 W0
> [0x0000000100003f20, 0x0000000100003f24): DW_OP_entry_value(DW_OP_reg0 W0), DW_OP_stack_value)
> DW_AT_abstract_origin (0x00000067 "unused1")
>
> whereas previously it was,
>
> 0x00000045: DW_TAG_formal_parameter
> DW_AT_abstract_origin (0x00000061 "unused1")
Based on that debug info it looks like the patch might've improved things - the 'previous' description has no location, the new one has a location (if it's correct - is there evidence it's incorrect?)
What was the expected behavior of the test? What's the new behavior? Oh, I can read the assertion now.
The assertion was that there is no location - but now there is a location. That looks like a good thing?
> Maybe a flaw in the test? Any idea if this is a debug-info regression?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D128830/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D128830
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list