Manuel Jacob
2015-Jan-25 11:42 UTC
[LLVMdev] GCMetadataPrinter::finishAssembly called twice
Hello Philip, it seems like r226311 [1] introduced a bug which causes finishAssembly() to be called multiple times, even if there is only one strategy. For each function, GCModuleInfo::getFunctionInfo() adds the strategy to the StrategyList instance variable. AsmPrinter::doFinalization() calls finishAssembly() for each strategy in this list. -Manuel [1] http://reviews.llvm.org/rL226311
Philip Reames
2015-Jan-26 05:43 UTC
[LLVMdev] GCMetadataPrinter::finishAssembly called twice
On 01/25/2015 03:42 AM, Manuel Jacob wrote:> Hello Philip, > > it seems like r226311 [1] introduced a bug which causes > finishAssembly() to be called multiple times, even if there is only > one strategy. For each function, GCModuleInfo::getFunctionInfo() adds > the strategy to the StrategyList instance variable. > AsmPrinter::doFinalization() calls finishAssembly() for each strategy > in this list. > > -Manuel > > [1] http://reviews.llvm.org/rL226311You're absolutely right. That's a bug. Odd that none of the unit tests caught that. I'm actually going to end up reverting most of that change for a different reason. I've already got the change ready to commit and plan on doing it first thing in the morning. I'll try to make sure I fix this issue in that change as well. Sorry for the breakage and thanks for the bug report. Philip
Philip Reames
2015-Jan-26 18:31 UTC
[LLVMdev] GCMetadataPrinter::finishAssembly called twice
This should be resolved in 227109. Philip On 01/25/2015 09:43 PM, Philip Reames wrote:> On 01/25/2015 03:42 AM, Manuel Jacob wrote: >> Hello Philip, >> >> it seems like r226311 [1] introduced a bug which causes >> finishAssembly() to be called multiple times, even if there is only >> one strategy. For each function, GCModuleInfo::getFunctionInfo() >> adds the strategy to the StrategyList instance variable. >> AsmPrinter::doFinalization() calls finishAssembly() for each strategy >> in this list. >> >> -Manuel >> >> [1] http://reviews.llvm.org/rL226311 > You're absolutely right. That's a bug. Odd that none of the unit > tests caught that. > > I'm actually going to end up reverting most of that change for a > different reason. I've already got the change ready to commit and > plan on doing it first thing in the morning. I'll try to make sure I > fix this issue in that change as well. > > Sorry for the breakage and thanks for the bug report. > > Philip > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev