[llvm-dev] Need help reproducing a bug

[Roman Lebedev via llvm-dev]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Michael Zolotukhin
<mzolotukhin at apple.com> wrote:
> Thanks everyone! What are the best tools/techniques to expose such
> non-deterministic behavior? My hope is to reproduce it on a smaller test
> (e.g. use some sanitizer and thus make the compiler *fail* when building the
> test) - Currently these failures only tell me “there is some bug in your
> code” without any hints where to look for it.
Hmm, have you tried -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON
-DLLVM_ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS=ON -DLLVM_REVERSE_ITERATION=ON
(especially the last one)?

> Michael
>
> On Apr 18, 2018, at 9:18 PM, Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Roman Lebedev via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Michael Zolotukhin via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Recently I committed a change (r330175) that passed all my testing, but
> failed on several bots. Namely, these are the failed ones:
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-thin-lto-ubuntu/builds/9803
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-lto-ubuntu/builds/8173
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lld-x86_64-freebsd/builds/18082
>
> Note what *specifically* failed:
> * compare-compilers compare stage3 and stage4 compilers failed ( 0 secs )
> * compare-tablegen-inc-files compare stage3 and stage4 Tablegen inc
> files failed ( 1 secs )
>
> I.e. it wasn't tests that failed.
>
>
> Failing that tests means the compiler doesn't produce deterministic output
> because the stage3 and stage 4 compiler has to be the same.
>
> Not sure about LLD test.
>
> Steven
>
>
> I reverted the change (r330180), but now I’m stuck with how to proceed with
> it, as I can’t reproduce any of these.
>
> So far I’ve tried building clang with asan and using this sanitized clang to
> build clang and lld one more time and run make check - none of these failed
> on my machine. What else could I try to catch the issue?
>
> In case you are interested in details and/or want to try to reproduce it,
> you’ll need to revert r330180 (and thus reapply r330175). The change is
> about using a new faster SSAUpdater in Jump Threading, more details are
> available in the phabricator: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44282.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>