nikic added a comment. In D126689#4654124 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126689#4654124>, @uabelho wrote:
> @nikic: Thanks, nothing to do there then even if I'm surprised. > > I'm not sure but I *think* that llvm-reduce may have some problems with this. > For my out of tree target I recently saw a case where llvm-reduced crashed > with > > llvm-reduce: ../tools/llvm-reduce/deltas/ReduceOperandsToArgs.cpp:64: void > replaceFunctionCalls(llvm::Function *, llvm::Function *): Assertion > `CI->getCalledFunction() == OldF' failed. > > and when I looked at the reduced result so far, I saw a call where parameters > didn't match the declaration. So I guess it may now reduce in ways that it > unexpected for it and then crash. Can you please file an issue for the llvm-reduce bug? I just took a quick look at the code, and it indeed has a mismatch in checks between canReplaceFunction() and replaceFunctionCalls() -- the conditions in both need to be the same, but aren't. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126689/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126689 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
