First-- thanks to Daniel Dunbar for reporting this issue from my earlier coarse report on IRC and to Devang Patel for fixing it. I'm writing to request that this fix (r81058) find its way into the 2.6 release. Code compiled with clang that uses VLAs is horribly broken without r81058 (at least on x86-64). I don't know if it has any other implications but it's definitely greatly stabilizing for our code base. Thanks, Mike PS -- I am not subscribed to this list. -- Michael P. Lyle Chief Executive Officer Translattice, Inc. mlyle at translattice.com
On Sep 7, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Michael Lyle wrote: First-- thanks to Daniel Dunbar for reporting this issue from my> earlier coarse report on IRC and to Devang Patel for fixing it. > > I'm writing to request that this fix (r81058) find its way into the > 2.6 release. Code compiled with clang that uses VLAs is horribly > broken without r81058 (at least on x86-64). I don't know if it has > any other implications but it's definitely greatly stabilizing for our > code base.Makes sense. Tanya, please pull http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090831/086443.html into 2.6 when convenient, thanks! -Chris> > Thanks, > > Mike > > PS -- I am not subscribed to this list. > > -- > Michael P. Lyle > Chief Executive Officer > Translattice, Inc. > mlyle at translattice.com > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
On Sep 7, 2009, at 9:19 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Sep 7, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Michael Lyle wrote: > First-- thanks to Daniel Dunbar for reporting this issue from my >> earlier coarse report on IRC and to Devang Patel for fixing it. >> >> I'm writing to request that this fix (r81058) find its way into the >> 2.6 release. Code compiled with clang that uses VLAs is horribly >> broken without r81058 (at least on x86-64). I don't know if it has >> any other implications but it's definitely greatly stabilizing for >> our >> code base. > > Makes sense. > > Tanya, please pull http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090831/086443.html > into 2.6 when convenient, thanks! >This can not go into 2.6, because r79742 is not in 2.6: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090817/085284.html Should this really be a release candidate? Its changing quite a bit and its not causing a regression. -Tanya> > -Chris > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mike >> >> PS -- I am not subscribed to this list. >> >> -- >> Michael P. Lyle >> Chief Executive Officer >> Translattice, Inc. >> mlyle at translattice.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090908/c89ad5a3/attachment.html>