Richtarsky, Martin via llvm-dev
2017-Feb-15 21:11 UTC
[llvm-dev] Compilation doesn't finish when building with clang 4.0.0 (was: [cfe-dev] [4.0.0 Release] Release Candidate 2 source and binaries available)
I forgot to mention, this is a build with -fsanitize=address. Removing this (or using -O0) makes it work. Here are some timings for things that work and the max RSS at the end: clang 3.9, -O1, -fsanitize=address: 3m:14.53, 922MB clang 4.0, -O1, -fno-sanitize=address: 3m:17.31, 697 MB clang 4.0, -O0, -fsanitize=address: 3m:22.78, 17.9 GB I'm bisecting now and will also try my luck with creduce later. Best regards, Martin>It sounds like PR31890 was introduced with r294186, which is well >after the 4.0 branch (r291814), so that's not what's happening here. > >Martin, how long does your file usually take to build? Would it be >possible to use creduce to get to a test case that you can upload to >the bug tracker?On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Nemanja Ivanovic via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> This may be a shot in the dark (I don't even know whether your revision > includes the culprit revision), but the symptoms seem similar to: > https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=31890 > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On 15 February 2017 at 10:24, Richtarsky, Martin via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > I have encountered very long compile times for three large source files >> > containing generated/unrolled code at -O1. >> > We are talking about 10+ hours here without completing, so it looks very >> > much like an endless loop. >> > The processes are using 15, 22 and 27 GB of memory but do not appear to >> > grow further. >> > This worked fine in the past, so appears to be a regression. >> >> Ouch! >> >> >> > Are there any new optimization passes I could try switching off? >> > I could not find any mention in the release notes of new passes. >> >> It doesn't seem to be any new passes, but the scheduler. Did this work >> in RC1? If so, it'll be a lot easier to identify the cause. If not, a >> bisection might help. >> >> cheers, >> --renato >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >