Skip to content

[LLVM] Fix get tm allow_missing check pos #13591

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
echuraev merged 1 commit into from
Dec 12, 2022
Merged

[LLVM] Fix get tm allow_missing check pos #13591

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions src/target/llvm/llvm_instance.cc
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -297,9 +297,9 @@ llvm::TargetMachine* LLVMTargetInfo::GetOrCreateTargetMachine(bool allow_missing
llvm_instance->createTargetMachine(triple_, cpu_, GetTargetFeatureString(), target_options_,
reloc_model_, code_model_, opt_level_);
target_machine_ = std::unique_ptr<llvm::TargetMachine>(tm);
if (!allow_missing) {
Copy link
Contributor

@kparzysz-quic kparzysz-quic Dec 12, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is the only place where target_machine_ is assigned a value, so this check was actually sufficient.

Edit: the change doesn't break anything, so it can stay.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@wrongtest-intellif wrongtest-intellif Dec 13, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Emmmm but when llvm::TargetRegistry::lookupTarget(triple_, error) failed，the target_machine_ is also nullptr,

Copy link
Contributor

@kparzysz-quic kparzysz-quic Dec 13, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, you're right.

ICHECK(target_machine_ != nullptr) << error;
}
}
if (!allow_missing) {
ICHECK(target_machine_ != nullptr) << error;
}
return target_machine_.get();
}
Expand Down