[X86] Update large-displacement.ll

[abhishek-kaushik22]

After 69bec0a was merged, this test was failing.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-x86

Author: Abhishek Kaushik (abhishek-kaushik22)

Changes

After 69bec0a was merged, this test was failing.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/151860.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/large-displacements.ll (+2)

diff --git a/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/large-displacements.ll b/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/large-displacements.ll
index 8935ec07bb3fa..cc6395d7b7fd0 100644
--- a/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/large-displacements.ll
+++ b/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/large-displacements.ll
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
 
 define i32 @main() #0 {
 ; ERR-i686: error: <unknown>:0:0: 64-bit offset calculated but target is 32-bit
+; ERR-i686: warning: <unknown>:0:0: stack frame size (4294967324) exceeds limit (4294967295) in function 'main'
 ;
 ; x86_64-LABEL: main:
 ; x86_64:       # %bb.0: # %entry
@@ -44,6 +45,7 @@ entry:
 ; Same test as above but for an anonymous function.
 define i32 @0() #0 {
 ; ERR-i686: error: <unknown>:0:0: 64-bit offset calculated but target is 32-bit
+; ERR-i686: warning: <unknown>:0:0: stack frame size (4294967324) exceeds limit (4294967295) in function '@0'
 ;
 ; x86_64-LABEL: __unnamed_1:
 ; x86_64:       # %bb.0: # %entry

[arsenm]

Why is this emitting both an error and a warning

[abhishek-kaushik22]

The warning was always there and was probably missed by @wesleywiser? It is coming from llvm/lib/CodeGen/PrologEpilogInserter.cpp:L315

https://godbolt.org/z/G4W48jcb6

[RKSimon]

Please can you confirm that this works with builds with EXPENSIVE_CHECKS enabled and disabled

[abhishek-kaushik22]

I checked with a debug build and EXPENSIVE_CHECKS on and it was still failing with a fatal_error in MachineVerifier. I've used --verify-machineinstrs=0 to fix this for now, but probably we need to check the return code in PEIImpl::replaceFrameIndices to stop codegen after the error?

      // If this instruction has a FrameIndex operand, we need to
      // use that target machine register info object to eliminate
      // it.
      TRI.eliminateFrameIndex(MI, SPAdj, i, RS);

[RKSimon]

I'm sorry but it looks like we need to revert #123872 and address the problem properly (and when we recommit the tests will need -verify-machineinstr set)