[rtsan][compiler-rt] Get rid of [[blocking]] stub in tests #111392
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-compiler-rt-sanitizer Author: Chris Apple (cjappl) ChangesAdded the printfs to ensure we wouldn't have these empty functions compiled out. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111392.diff 1 Files Affected:
diff --git a/compiler-rt/test/rtsan/blocking_call.cpp b/compiler-rt/test/rtsan/blocking_call.cpp
index 47ce3d5544cbd6..7bc46f24fd5432 100644
--- a/compiler-rt/test/rtsan/blocking_call.cpp
+++ b/compiler-rt/test/rtsan/blocking_call.cpp
@@ -7,18 +7,11 @@
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
-// TODO: Remove when [[blocking]] is implemented.
-extern "C" void __rtsan_notify_blocking_call(const char *function_name);
-
-void custom_blocking_function() {
- // TODO: When [[blocking]] is implemented, don't call this directly.
- __rtsan_notify_blocking_call(__func__);
+void custom_blocking_function() [[clang::blocking]] {
+ printf("In blocking function\n");
}
-void safe_call() {
- // TODO: When [[blocking]] is implemented, don't call this directly.
- __rtsan_notify_blocking_call(__func__);
-}
+void safe_call() [[clang::blocking]] { printf("In safe call\n"); }
void process() [[clang::nonblocking]] { custom_blocking_function(); }
@@ -28,7 +21,7 @@ int main() {
return 0;
// CHECK-NOT: {{.*safe_call*}}
// CHECK: ==ERROR: RealtimeSanitizer: blocking-call
- // CHECK-NEXT: Call to blocking function `custom_blocking_function` in real-time context!
+ // CHECK-NEXT: Call to blocking function `custom_blocking_function()` in real-time context!
// CHECK-NEXT: {{.*custom_blocking_function*}}
// CHECK-NEXT: {{.*process*}}
}
|
cjappl
commented
Oct 7, 2024
| @@ -28,7 +21,7 @@ int main() { | |||
| return 0; | |||
| // CHECK-NOT: {{.*safe_call*}} | |||
| // CHECK: ==ERROR: RealtimeSanitizer: blocking-call | |||
| // CHECK-NEXT: Call to blocking function `custom_blocking_function` in real-time context! | |||
| // CHECK-NEXT: Call to blocking function `custom_blocking_function()` in real-time context! | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This change was because func behaves different from the LLVM IR demangling of the same func
|
@davidtrevelyan I'm submitting this once tests are green, feel free to review before or post-commit |
| // TODO: When [[blocking]] is implemented, don't call this directly. | ||
| __rtsan_notify_blocking_call(__func__); | ||
| } | ||
| void safe_call() [[clang::blocking]] { printf("In safe call\n"); } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a bit confused as to why we have a function called safe_call that's attributed [[clang::blocking]]. The test assertions also check that safe_call is not printed. Was it originally a mistake to call __rtsan_notify_blocking_call in the test when it was first written, maybe?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This call is to test that [[blocking]] called from an un-attributed setting (main) does not result in any error. Happy to take suggestions on how to make this more clear!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just took a second crack at it with different assertions etc, let me know what you think
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oops - I missed the call to safe_call in main - my mistake. Anyway, if we wanted to make an improvement, I think we could organise main into:
int main() {
nonrealtime_function();
realtime_function();
return 0;
}where the wrappers nonrealtime_function and realtime_function are simply:
void realtime_function() [[clang::nonblocking]] { custom_blocking_function(); }
void nonrealtime_function() { custom_blocking_function(); }and notice we have eliminated safe_call.
cjappl
force-pushed
the
blocking_lit_test
branch
from
04fde07 to
e8bc15b
Compare
davidtrevelyan
approved these changes
Oct 7, 2024
|
Build failure unrelated - merging |
|
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Full details are available at: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/123/builds/7101 Here is the relevant piece of the build log for the reference |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Added the printfs to ensure we wouldn't have these empty functions compiled out.