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.
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
