Fix a bug when writing LLVM assembly to an existing file #373
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
Otherwise, if we write to an existing file that is larger than the one we want to write, the result will be a mix of the two.
This used to be done in one particular optimization test and have effect on the tests that ran later. However, if only a subset of tests is run, the targets could remain uninitialized, leading to test failures.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Previously, writeLLVMAssemblyToFile and other similar functions would not truncate an existing file when writing to it.
This means that when there are two calls to writeLLVMAssemblyToFile, and the second one results in a smaller file, there would be remainings of the first module at the end of the file, making it invalid.
This PR fixes that and removes the excl boolean argument to file-writing functions, as there's no use for it in the code base. It would have to be applied to other branches too (I checked that the issue is still present on the llvm-12 branch).