test runs: address range spew?

Hi all,

When I run tests with dotest.py -v, I’m seeing a lot of tests spew out quite a few lines of output that look like an address with some kind of closed-open range:

e.g.

0x002b0eb4: [0x00000000000facc0 - 0x00000000000face4)
0x002b0f24: [0x00000000000facf0 - 0x00000000000fad11)
0x002b0f94: [0x00000000000fad20 - 0x00000000000fad41)
0x002b1004: [0x00000000000fad50 - 0x00000000000fad71)
0x002b1074: [0x00000000000fad80 - 0x00000000000fada4)

This is on Ubuntu 14.04.3 with TOT as of this morning. This prints out hundreds or thousands of times across many tests.

One example would be:

485: test_recursive_inferior_crashing_step_dwarf (TestRecursiveInferior.CrashingRecursiveInferiorTestCase)
Test that stepping after a crash behaves correctly. … 0000000fafc0)
0x002b1464: [0x00000000000fafc0 - 0x00000000000fafe1)
0x002b14d4: [0x00000000000faff0 - 0x00000000000fb014)
0x002b1544: [0x00000000000fb020 - 0x00000000000fb041)
0x002b15b4: [0x00000000000fb050 - 0x00000000000fb071)
0x002b1624: [0x00000000000fb080 - 0x00000000000fb0a4)
0x002b1694: [0x00000000000fb0b0 - 0x00000000000fb10a)

Any ideas what is generating that? Looks like something that was probably accidentally checked in, but I’m blind as to when it would have started appearing.

Thanks!

I see a possible printf at DWARFCompileUnit.cpp:444

$> git grep -n ": \[.*-.*)"
Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFCompileUnit.cpp:444:
   printf ("0x%8.8x: [0x%16.16" PRIx64 " - 0x%16.16" PRIx64 ")\n",
GetOffset(), range.GetRangeBase(), range.GetRangeEnd());
Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFDebugAranges.cpp:120:
log->Printf ("0x%8.8x: [0x%" PRIx64 " - 0x%" PRIx64 ")",
Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFDebugInfoEntry.cpp:1858:
/// printf("BuildAddressRangeTable() 0x%8.8x: %30s: [0x%8.8x -
0x%8.8x)\n", m_offset, DW_TAG_value_to_name(tag), lo_pc, hi_pc);
Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFDebugInfoEntry.cpp:1897: //
printf("BuildAddressRangeTable() 0x%8.8x: [0x%16.16" PRIx64 " -
0x%16.16" PRIx64 ")\n", m_offset, lo_pc, hi_pc); // DEBUG ONLY

Thanks, Siva. I’ll try commenting that out locally and see if that goes away.

That seems to be it. I’ll spin up a code review for a change to comment it out.

Posted review here:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12380