[llvm][cmake] Performing expensive checks requires enabling assert.

[huaatian]

LLVM will intercept errors using assert() when LLVM_ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS is ON. So an explicit check is added.

[github-actions]

Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project!

This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be
notified.

If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page.

If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write
permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by
name in a comment by using @ followed by their GitHub username.

If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review
by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate
is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers.

If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide.

You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-ir

Author: None (huaatian)

Changes

Protection needs to be added to these two unit tests to prevent execution when NDEBUG is defined.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80821.diff

2 Files Affected:

• (modified) llvm/unittests/IR/BasicBlockTest.cpp (+2)
• (modified) llvm/unittests/IR/FunctionTest.cpp (+2)

diff --git a/llvm/unittests/IR/BasicBlockTest.cpp b/llvm/unittests/IR/BasicBlockTest.cpp
index 3756f227143a50..79bf72bf32f914 100644
--- a/llvm/unittests/IR/BasicBlockTest.cpp
+++ b/llvm/unittests/IR/BasicBlockTest.cpp
@@ -472,6 +472,7 @@ TEST(BasicBlockTest, SpliceInstrRange) {
 }
 
 #ifdef EXPENSIVE_CHECKS
+#ifndef NDEBUG
 TEST(BasicBlockTest, SpliceEndBeforeBegin) {
   LLVMContext Ctx;
   std::unique_ptr<Module> M = parseIR(Ctx, R"(
@@ -503,6 +504,7 @@ TEST(BasicBlockTest, SpliceEndBeforeBegin) {
                             FromI1->getIterator()),
                "FromBeginIt not before FromEndIt!");
 }
+#endif //NDEBUG
 #endif //EXPENSIVE_CHECKS
 
 TEST(BasicBlockTest, EraseRange) {
diff --git a/llvm/unittests/IR/FunctionTest.cpp b/llvm/unittests/IR/FunctionTest.cpp
index 8e77dfbb9dbd99..cb364cf3028871 100644
--- a/llvm/unittests/IR/FunctionTest.cpp
+++ b/llvm/unittests/IR/FunctionTest.cpp
@@ -410,6 +410,7 @@ TEST(FunctionTest, SpliceBBRange) {
 }
 
 #ifdef EXPENSIVE_CHECKS
+#ifndef NDEBUG
 TEST(FunctionTest, SpliceEndBeforeBegin) {
   LLVMContext Ctx;
   std::unique_ptr<Module> M = parseIR(Ctx, R"(
@@ -442,6 +443,7 @@ TEST(FunctionTest, SpliceEndBeforeBegin) {
                            FromBB1->getIterator()),
                "FromBeginIt not before FromEndIt!");
 }
+#endif //NDEBUG
 #endif //EXPENSIVE_CHECKS
 
 TEST(FunctionTest, EraseBBs) {

[github-actions]

✅ With the latest revision this PR passed the C/C++ code formatter.

[huaatian]

@vporpo

[huaatian]

@aeubanks, this issue was discovered in our downstream project. Could you please help review it? Thank you.

[aeubanks]

it doesn't really make sense to run expensive checks without asserts, I wouldn't consider that configuration supported

[huaatian]

it doesn't really make sense to run expensive checks without asserts, I wouldn't consider that configuration supported

Thank you for reviewing the code. Indeed, in most cases, when EXPENSIVE_CHECKS is enabled, !NDEBUG is also set. However, I understand that there is no explicit binding between these two situations. For example, in a few cases, I would like to use the checks that report errors with errs(), rather than using assert(). This can be considered as a tolerable medium complexity check. Is this understanding correct? I would appreciate your opinion.

[huaatian]

And also, when the user enables EXPENSIVE_CHECKS and NDEBUG, there is no prompt that such settings are wrong, but these two unit tests will fail. I think this is an issue.

[aeubanks]

For example, in a few cases, I would like to use the checks that report errors with errs(), rather than using assert().

I don't understand this sentence, can you clarify?

And also, when the user enables EXPENSIVE_CHECKS and NDEBUG, there is no prompt that such settings are wrong, but these two unit tests will fail. I think this is an issue.

That's fair, it would be good to have a check for this either in CMake or in some header. I would prefer this option.

[huaatian]

That's fair, it would be good to have a check for this either in CMake or in some header. I would prefer this option.

So, I added a check in CMake, would that be appropriate?

[aeubanks]

please update the commit description and title

thanks for doing this!

[github-actions]

@huaatian Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the LLVM Project!

Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then tested
by our build bots. If there is a problem with a build, you may recieve a report in an email or a comment on this PR.

Please check whether problems have been caused by your change specifically, as
the builds can include changes from many authors. It is not uncommon for your
change to be included in a build that fails due to someone else's changes, or
infrastructure issues.

How to do this, and the rest of the post-merge process, is covered in detail here.

If your change does cause a problem, it may be reverted, or you can revert it yourself.
This is a normal part of LLVM development. You can fix your changes and open a new PR to merge them again.

If you don't get any reports, no action is required from you. Your changes are working as expected, well done!