djtodoro marked an inline comment as done.
djtodoro added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/param_entry_vals/basic_entry_values_x86_64/main.cpp:159
// FUNC11-BT: func11_tailcalled{{.*}}
// FUNC11-BT-NEXT: func12{{.*}} [artificial]
use(x);
----------------
vsk wrote:
> The failure was:
> ```
> main.cpp:159:21: error: FUNC11-BT-NEXT: expected string not found in input
> // FUNC11-BT-NEXT: func12{{.*}} [artificial]
> ^
> <stdin>:3:2: note: scanning from here
> frame #1: 0x00000001079eae69 a.out`func12(sink=0x00007ffee8215cb4, x=123) at
> main.cpp:179:3 [opt]
> ```
>
> The added `DESTROY_RBX` asm might confuse TailRecursionElimination into
> believing that the callee accesses the caller's stack. Could you double-check
> that a tail call is actually emitted in `func12` (something like `jmp
> *%rax`)? If it //is//, this is a pre-existing lldb bug, so the func12 test
> should be disabled.
@vsk Thanks for the comment!
The problem here is the fresh change in the code production by using the `-O1`
level of optimization. More precisely, at very high level, after the D65410 we
do not have a tail call where we expected.
I am proposing using the `-O2` level of the optimizations, since we are testing
printing of the entry values in the test case, rather than tail call frames
with particular level of optimization.
WDYT?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68209/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68209
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
