dexonsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Serialization/ASTReader.cpp:6343
"Invalid data, missing pragma diagnostic states");
- SourceLocation Loc = ReadSourceLocation(F, Record[Idx++]);
- auto IDAndOffset = SourceMgr.getDecomposedLoc(Loc);
- assert(IDAndOffset.first.isValid() && "invalid FileID for transition");
- assert(IDAndOffset.second == 0 && "not a start location for a FileID");
+ FileID FID = ReadFileID(F, Record, Idx);
+ assert(FID.isValid() && "invalid FileID for transition");
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> alexfh wrote:
> > jansvoboda11 wrote:
> > > alexfh wrote:
> > > > dexonsmith wrote:
> > > > > eaeltsin wrote:
> > > > > > This doesn't work as before, likely because ReadFileID doesn't do
> > > > > > TranslateSourceLocation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Our tests fail.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I tried calling TranslateSourceLocation here and the tests passed:
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > SourceLocation Loc = Diag.SourceMgr->getComposedLoc(FID, 0);
> > > > > > SourceLocation Loc2 = TranslateSourceLocation(F, Loc);
> > > > > > auto IDAndOffset = SourceMgr.getDecomposedLoc(Loc2);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > // Note that we don't need to set up Parent/ParentOffset
> > > > > > here, because
> > > > > > // we won't be changing the diagnostic state within imported
> > > > > > FileIDs
> > > > > > // (other than perhaps appending to the main source file,
> > > > > > which has no
> > > > > > // parent).
> > > > > > auto &F = Diag.DiagStatesByLoc.Files[IDAndOffset.first];
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry I don't know the codebase, so this fix is definitely ugly :)
> > > > > > But it shows the problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I don't think that's the issue, since `ReadFileID()` calls
> > > > > `TranslateFileID`, which should seems like it should be equivalent.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I notice that the post-increment for `Idx` got dropped! Can
> > > > > you try replacing the line of code with the following and see if that
> > > > > fixes your tests (without any extra TranslateSourceLocation logic)?
> > > > > ```
> > > > > lang=c++
> > > > > FileID FID = ReadFileID(F, Record, Idx++);
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > If so, maybe you can contribute that fix with a reduced testcase? I
> > > > > suggest adding me, @vsapsai, @Bigcheese, and @jansvoboda11 as
> > > > > reviewers.
> > > > >
> > > > > @alexfh, maybe you can check if this fixes your tests as well?
> > > > >
> > > > > (If this is the issue, it's a bit surprising we don't have existing
> > > > > tests covering this case... and embarrassing I missed it when
> > > > > reviewing initially!)
> > > > I've noticed the dropped `Idx` post-increment as well, but I went a
> > > > step further and looked at the `ReadFileID` implementation, which is
> > > > actually doing a post-increment itself, and accepts `Idx` by reference:
> > > > ```
> > > > FileID ReadFileID(ModuleFile &F, const RecordDataImpl &Record,
> > > > unsigned &Idx) const {
> > > > return TranslateFileID(F, FileID::get(Record[Idx++]));
> > > > }
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > Thus, it seems to be correct. But what @eaeltsin has found is actually
> > > > a problem for us. I'm currently trying to make an isolated test case,
> > > > but it's quite tricky (as header modules are =\). It may be the case
> > > > that our build setup relies on something clang doesn't explicitly
> > > > promises, but the fact is that the behavior (as observed by our build
> > > > setup) has changed. I'll try to revert the commit for now to get us
> > > > unblocked and provide a test case as soon as I can.
> > > Thanks for helping out @dexonsmith, we did have the week off.
> > >
> > > @eaeltsin @alexfhDone, are you able to provide the failing test case? I'm
> > > happy to look into it and re-land this with a fix.
> > I've spent multiple hours trying to extract an observable test case. It
> > turned out to be too hairy of a yaq to shave: for each compilation a
> > separate sandboxed environment is created with a separate symlink tree with
> > just the inputs necessary for that action. Some of the inputs are prebuilt
> > module files (e.g. for libc++) that are version-locked with the compiler.
> > So far @jgorbe and I could reduce this to four compilation steps with their
> > own symlink trees with inputs. While I could figure out some of the factors
> > that affect reproducibility (for example, symlinks are important, since
> > making a deep copy of the input directories makes the issue disappear), it
> > will take a few more hours of concentrated yak shaving to bring this to a
> > shareable state. I'm not sure I have much more time to sink into
> > investigating this.
> >
> > It seems like examining code based on @eaeltsin's finding may be a more
> > fruitful path to synthesizing a regression test. Could you try following
> > that path?
> One more observation: `-fmodules-embed-all-files` and `-Wno-mismatched-tags`
> compiler options turned out to be important.
Maybe @eaeltsin can help, but I don't see any reason to think that testcase
will be easier. Typically we don't revert without a testcase or at least some
way to understand the problem and make progress.
(Maybe @jansvoboda11 has ideas for extra instrumentation in the compiler to
better understand what's going on with your setup?)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137213/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137213
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
