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 lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits