Serge Rogatch via llvm-dev
2017-Jan-09 20:47 UTC
[llvm-dev] Removed a call to EmitXRayTable() from ARMAsmPrinter
Sharing with the mailing list... Please, see below. On 9 January 2017 at 23:45, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi Dean, > > I have seen that you removed the following code from ARMAsmPrinter.cpp in > revision 290858: > // Emit the XRay table for this function. > EmitXRayTable(); > > Was this done by mistake or on purpose? > > 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? > > Cheers, > Serge >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170109/f4460f40/attachment.html>
Renato Golin via llvm-dev
2017-Jan-09 20:50 UTC
[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
Oleg Ranevskyy via llvm-dev
2017-Jan-09 21:32 UTC
[llvm-dev] Removed a call to EmitXRayTable() from ARMAsmPrinter
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
Seemingly Similar Threads
- Removed a call to EmitXRayTable() from ARMAsmPrinter
- Removed a call to EmitXRayTable() from ARMAsmPrinter
- XRay: Demo on x86_64/Linux almost done; some questions.
- XRay: Demo on x86_64/Linux almost done; some questions.
- Removed a call to EmitXRayTable() from ARMAsmPrinter