Skip to content

Conversation

@kateinoigakukun
Copy link
Member

The test was failing on 32-bit targets because of the different size of dereferenceable attribute.

B.swift:37:11: error: CHECK: expected string not found in input
// CHECK: declare swiftcc { ptr, ptr } @"$s1M1CC1i33_807E3D81CC6CDD898084F3279464DDF9LLSDySOypGvM"(ptr noalias dereferenceable(32), ptr swiftself) #0
          ^
<stdin>:125:1: note: possible intended match here
declare swiftcc { ptr, ptr } @"$s1M1CC1i33_807E3D81CC6CDD898084F3279464DDF9LLSDySOypGvM"(ptr noalias dereferenceable(16), ptr swiftself) #0

The size of coroutine buffer passed as the first argument to the "modify" coroutine function is dependent on the target pointer size. (it's calculated as NumWords_YieldOnceBuffer * sizeof(void*)`).

The size is out of the scope of the test, so just accept any size.

The test was failing on 32-bit targets because of the different size of
`dereferenceable` attribute.

```
B.swift:37:11: error: CHECK: expected string not found in input
// CHECK: declare swiftcc { ptr, ptr } @"$s1M1CC1i33_807E3D81CC6CDD898084F3279464DDF9LLSDySOypGvM"(ptr noalias dereferenceable(32), ptr swiftself) #0
          ^
<stdin>:125:1: note: possible intended match here
declare swiftcc { ptr, ptr } @"$s1M1CC1i33_807E3D81CC6CDD898084F3279464DDF9LLSDySOypGvM"(ptr noalias dereferenceable(16), ptr swiftself) #0
```

The size of coroutine buffer passed as the first argument to the
"modify" coroutine function is dependent on the target pointer size.
(it's calculated as `NumWords_YieldOnceBuffer` * sizeof(void*)`).

The size is out of the scope of the test, so just accept any size.
@kateinoigakukun
Copy link
Member Author

preset=buildbot_linux_crosscompile_wasm
@swift-ci Please test with preset Linux Platform

@kateinoigakukun
Copy link
Member Author

preset=buildbot_linux_crosscompile_wasm
@swift-ci Please test with preset Linux Platform

@kateinoigakukun
Copy link
Member Author

@swift-ci Please smoke test

@finagolfin
Copy link
Member

I already have a fix for this in #70929, can you check if that would work instead?

@kateinoigakukun
Copy link
Member Author

kateinoigakukun commented Jan 18, 2024

@finagolfin The test fix is almost identical to yours, but the CMake change seems arguable. I want to merge this PR to unblock our CI first, and the CMake change should be discussed in your PR. Does that sound reasonable for you?

@finagolfin
Copy link
Member

Can you hold off for a day? I think my pull will go in today and be more general. This test has been broken on 32-bit for a month now, don't think waiting another day will hurt.

@kateinoigakukun
Copy link
Member Author

@finagolfin Okay, I understood

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants