On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 9:07 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <mask...@google.com> wrote: > > It is rare to report an error in BackendUtil.cpp . So I checked the > other Diags.Report instance and noticed that -split-dwarf-file a.dwo > -split-dwarf-output a.dwo (when a.dwo is not writable) suppresses the > output. So there is no reason that -fbasic-block-sections=list= should > not follow the convention.
Ah, thanks - I'm starting to see the connection, but it's still a few extra steps for me. How'd you get from looking for Diags.Reports to the split-dwarf-file case? Oh, because that produces an error (here: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/clang/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp#L140 ) & that error path suppresses output of any output files, not just the one that couldn't be written to - right right. Thanks for all the details! Leaving the code review for now for Sri to take a look at. (good to get some cross-pollination of reviewers/understanding of the issues in the original code, etc) > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 8:18 PM David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 8:08 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <mask...@google.com> wrote: > >> > >> I checked chmod -w a.dwo; clang -cc1 -debug-info-kind=limited > >> -dwarf-version=4 -split-dwarf-file a.dwo -split-dwarf-output a.dwo > >> -emit-obj -o - split-debug-output.c > >> which suppresses the output, so -fbasic-block-sections=list= should > >> follow the convention as well. > > > > > > I missed a step as to the inference between the split-dwarf example and the > > fbasic-block-sections example. Could you explain further what the > > split-dwarf test was intending to demonstrate/how it relates to the > > -fbasic-block-sections example? > > > >> > >> > >> Sent https://reviews.llvm.org/D90815 > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 7:26 PM David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 2:21 PM Sriraman Tallam via cfe-commits > >> > <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 2:14 PM David Blaikie via Phabricator > >> >> <revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> dblaikie added a comment. > >> >>> > >> >>> @tmsriram ping on the follow-up here > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I checked in the patch that emits llvm instead of obj which spews > >> >> garbage to the terminal as I wasn't redirecting it to /dev/null. The > >> >> test seems stable. Is there a particular concern? Sorry if I missed > >> >> somethig here? > >> > > >> > > >> > Oh, sorry - I missed your emails on-list, as they didn't end up on the > >> > review when viewed via Phabricator - that's most of the confusion. My > >> > mistake. > >> > > >> > Going back over it though - Yep, I totally missed the "ERROR" check line > >> > at the end (maybe worth an empty line between it and the UNIQUE check > >> > lines - as there's a break between UNIQUE and other lines (maybe the > >> > BB_* ones could use breaks too)). > >> > > >> > Though I'm still curious: Why is this command producing any > >> > object/binary output if it has produced an error message? That seems > >> > incorrect to me (generally if there's been any error, there wouldn't be > >> > output). > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 宋方睿 > > > > -- > 宋方睿 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
