Sandeep Raju
2015-Apr-29 17:29 UTC
[LLVMdev] Assertion failure (Bug 21609) in DwarfFile.cpp
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:14 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:> I believe duncan's fixed this recently in 235956 and 235955 - does ToT work > for you?It seems like r235955 might have fixed it. However I'm having build issues with ToT in my environment. Is this the right place to check ToT build status: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/one_line_per_build> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Sandeep Raju <srand48 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Folks, >> >> I ran into this assertion failure while compiling a function with a >> large number of arguments: >> >> https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21609 >> >> I have coded up the fix as per David's suggestion (added a new header >> field for DIVariable to separate out ArgNo & LineNo). The proposed >> diff is attached to the bug. >> >> However, there are around 175 testcases across clang & llvm that need >> to be udpated to reflect the new schema. One such eg: > > > The debug info has changed substantially in the last few months - those > changes made a lot of churn to the test cases and, as a biproduct, made it > unnecessary to update any test cases for this change.Ok. The debug info has indeed changed substantially in ToT. I have a 3.6 release from around March 1st. Thanks, Sandeep> >> >> >> diff --git a/test/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer/debug_info.ll >> b/test/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer/debug_info.ll >> index c0939c5..4112f14 100644 >> --- a/test/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer/debug_info.ll >> +++ b/test/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer/debug_info.ll >> @@ -41,9 +41,9 @@ declare void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata, metadata, >> metadata) nounwind readnone >> !7 = !{!"0x15\00\000\000\000\000\000\000", i32 0, null, null, !8, >> null, null, null} ; [ DW_TAG_subroutine_type ] [line 0, size 0, align >> 0, offset 0] [from ] >> !8 = !{!9, !9} >> !9 = !{!"0x24\00int\000\0032\0032\000\000\005", null, null} ; [ >> DW_TAG_base_type ] [int] [line 0, size 32, align 32, offset 0, enc >> DW_ATE_signed] >> -!10 = !{!"0x101\00p\0016777217\000", !5, !6, !9} ; [ >> DW_TAG_arg_variable ] [p] [line 1] >> +!10 = !{!"0x101\00p\001\001\000", !5, !6, !9} ; [ DW_TAG_arg_variable >> ] [p] [line 1] >> !11 = !MDLocation(line: 1, scope: !5) >> -!12 = !{!"0x100\00r\002\000", !13, !6, !9} ; [ DW_TAG_auto_variable ] >> [r] [line 2] >> +!12 = !{!"0x100\00r\002\000\000", !13, !6, !9} ; [ >> DW_TAG_auto_variable ] [r] [line 2] >> >> Before I spend cycles updating the test cases, I wanted get a 'go >> ahead' from code owners. >> >> Please let me know. >> >> Thanks, >> Sandeep >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >
David Blaikie
2015-Apr-29 17:33 UTC
[LLVMdev] Assertion failure (Bug 21609) in DwarfFile.cpp
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Sandeep Raju <srand48 at gmail.com> wrote:> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:14 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > I believe duncan's fixed this recently in 235956 and 235955 - does ToT > work > > for you? > > It seems like r235955 might have fixed it. However I'm having build > issues with ToT in my environment. Is this the right place to check > ToT build status: > > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/one_line_per_buildMore or less - though honestly there are a lot of flakey/bad builders so some of those reds aren't actually all that important. Happy to help with any specific problems.> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Sandeep Raju <srand48 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Folks, > >> > >> I ran into this assertion failure while compiling a function with a > >> large number of arguments: > >> > >> https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21609 > >> > >> I have coded up the fix as per David's suggestion (added a new header > >> field for DIVariable to separate out ArgNo & LineNo). The proposed > >> diff is attached to the bug. > >> > >> However, there are around 175 testcases across clang & llvm that need > >> to be udpated to reflect the new schema. One such eg: > > > > > > The debug info has changed substantially in the last few months - those > > changes made a lot of churn to the test cases and, as a biproduct, made > it > > unnecessary to update any test cases for this change. > > Ok. The debug info has indeed changed substantially in ToT. I have a > 3.6 release from around March 1st. >*nod* it's difficult to submit patches for LLVM if you're not working on ToT, unfortunately.> > Thanks, > Sandeep > > > > >> > >> > >> diff --git a/test/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer/debug_info.ll > >> b/test/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer/debug_info.ll > >> index c0939c5..4112f14 100644 > >> --- a/test/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer/debug_info.ll > >> +++ b/test/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer/debug_info.ll > >> @@ -41,9 +41,9 @@ declare void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata, metadata, > >> metadata) nounwind readnone > >> !7 = !{!"0x15\00\000\000\000\000\000\000", i32 0, null, null, !8, > >> null, null, null} ; [ DW_TAG_subroutine_type ] [line 0, size 0, align > >> 0, offset 0] [from ] > >> !8 = !{!9, !9} > >> !9 = !{!"0x24\00int\000\0032\0032\000\000\005", null, null} ; [ > >> DW_TAG_base_type ] [int] [line 0, size 32, align 32, offset 0, enc > >> DW_ATE_signed] > >> -!10 = !{!"0x101\00p\0016777217\000", !5, !6, !9} ; [ > >> DW_TAG_arg_variable ] [p] [line 1] > >> +!10 = !{!"0x101\00p\001\001\000", !5, !6, !9} ; [ DW_TAG_arg_variable > >> ] [p] [line 1] > >> !11 = !MDLocation(line: 1, scope: !5) > >> -!12 = !{!"0x100\00r\002\000", !13, !6, !9} ; [ DW_TAG_auto_variable ] > >> [r] [line 2] > >> +!12 = !{!"0x100\00r\002\000\000", !13, !6, !9} ; [ > >> DW_TAG_auto_variable ] [r] [line 2] > >> > >> Before I spend cycles updating the test cases, I wanted get a 'go > >> ahead' from code owners. > >> > >> Please let me know. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Sandeep > >> _______________________________________________ > >> LLVM Developers mailing list > >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150429/ed4ce998/attachment.html>
Sandeep Raju
2015-Apr-29 18:53 UTC
[LLVMdev] Assertion failure (Bug 21609) in DwarfFile.cpp
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:33 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:> > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Sandeep Raju <srand48 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:14 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> > I believe duncan's fixed this recently in 235956 and 235955 - does ToT >> > work >> > for you? >> >> It seems like r235955 might have fixed it. However I'm having build >> issues with ToT in my environment. Is this the right place to check >> ToT build status: >> >> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/one_line_per_build > > > More or less - though honestly there are a lot of flakey/bad builders so > some of those reds aren't actually all that important. > > Happy to help with any specific problems.Thanks! I must have picked up the ToT in a funky state. I just pulled ToT afresh & it built fine. Fix (r235955) verified.> >> >> >> >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Sandeep Raju <srand48 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Folks, >> >> >> >> I ran into this assertion failure while compiling a function with a >> >> large number of arguments: >> >> >> >> https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21609 >> >> >> >> I have coded up the fix as per David's suggestion (added a new header >> >> field for DIVariable to separate out ArgNo & LineNo). The proposed >> >> diff is attached to the bug. >> >> >> >> However, there are around 175 testcases across clang & llvm that need >> >> to be udpated to reflect the new schema. One such eg: >> > >> > >> > The debug info has changed substantially in the last few months - those >> > changes made a lot of churn to the test cases and, as a biproduct, made >> > it >> > unnecessary to update any test cases for this change. >> >> Ok. The debug info has indeed changed substantially in ToT. I have a >> 3.6 release from around March 1st. > > > *nod* it's difficult to submit patches for LLVM if you're not working on > ToT, unfortunately.Duly noted. Thanks again. Sandeep> >> >> >> Thanks, >> Sandeep >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/test/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer/debug_info.ll >> >> b/test/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer/debug_info.ll >> >> index c0939c5..4112f14 100644 >> >> --- a/test/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer/debug_info.ll >> >> +++ b/test/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer/debug_info.ll >> >> @@ -41,9 +41,9 @@ declare void @llvm.dbg.declare(metadata, metadata, >> >> metadata) nounwind readnone >> >> !7 = !{!"0x15\00\000\000\000\000\000\000", i32 0, null, null, !8, >> >> null, null, null} ; [ DW_TAG_subroutine_type ] [line 0, size 0, align >> >> 0, offset 0] [from ] >> >> !8 = !{!9, !9} >> >> !9 = !{!"0x24\00int\000\0032\0032\000\000\005", null, null} ; [ >> >> DW_TAG_base_type ] [int] [line 0, size 32, align 32, offset 0, enc >> >> DW_ATE_signed] >> >> -!10 = !{!"0x101\00p\0016777217\000", !5, !6, !9} ; [ >> >> DW_TAG_arg_variable ] [p] [line 1] >> >> +!10 = !{!"0x101\00p\001\001\000", !5, !6, !9} ; [ DW_TAG_arg_variable >> >> ] [p] [line 1] >> >> !11 = !MDLocation(line: 1, scope: !5) >> >> -!12 = !{!"0x100\00r\002\000", !13, !6, !9} ; [ DW_TAG_auto_variable ] >> >> [r] [line 2] >> >> +!12 = !{!"0x100\00r\002\000\000", !13, !6, !9} ; [ >> >> DW_TAG_auto_variable ] [r] [line 2] >> >> >> >> Before I spend cycles updating the test cases, I wanted get a 'go >> >> ahead' from code owners. >> >> >> >> Please let me know. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Sandeep >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> > >> > > >