[llvm-dev] Removed a call to EmitXRayTable() from ARMAsmPrinter

[Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev]

Oops -- sorry about that, this is definitely unintended. Adding in Martin who made the change.

I'm happy to review changes to fix this, or if you don't get to it first I can drive by that part of the code and try and fix it myself. I unfortunately don't have easy access to arm machines so it is a little hard for me to try and fix these things proactively (or not catch them in the first place). :(

> On 10 Jan 2017, at 08:32, Oleg Ranevskyy via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Renato,
> 
> As far as I understand, such issues should be caught by the tests in compiler-rt/test/xray/TestCases/Linux.
> I found the following lines in compiler-rt/test/xray/lit.cfg that seem to disable the tests for non-64-bit targets:
> 
> if config.host_os not in ['Linux'] or config.host_arch.find('64') == -1:
>  config.unsupported = True
> 
> @Serge: You will need to change this condition to enable the tests for ARM.
> 
> Oleg
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 11:50 PM
> To: Serge Rogatch
> Cc: Dean Michael Berris; LLVM Developers; Oleg Ranevskyy
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Removed a call to EmitXRayTable() from ARMAsmPrinter
> 
> On 9 January 2017 at 20:47, Serge Rogatch via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> Without this call, xray_instr_map gets empty in the executable, so that
>>> XRay doesn't patch anything. While implementing the tail call handling, I am
>>> reverting this change (I mean, just returning the call to emitXRayTable()
>>> where it was), or are there reasons I shouldn't?
> 
> Any reason why no tests were harmed in the process? Maybe we're not
> testing as thorough as we thought?
> 
> --renato
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

-- Dean