uabelho added a comment. In D126689#4654126 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126689#4654126>, @nikic wrote:
> 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. Yeah I can do that. Unfortunately I don't have any reproducer I can share though but if you think you know at least one problem in the vicinity maybe it's good enough. In D126689#4654126 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126689#4654126>, @nikic wrote: > 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. Sure, I wrote https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/69312 which is pretty useless since I can't share any reproducer but anyway there it is. Good if you saw something in the vicinity that indeed looks related. 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
