search for: r81058

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...

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 pul...

...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. >...

...and its not causing a regression. > > No, the bigger patch should not go into 2.6. Devang, can you please > prepare a version of this patch that applies cleanly to the 2.6 > branch? > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090831/086443.html hmmm... r81058 fixes a bug in the code that I added as part of r79742. We definitely do not want to add r79742 in 2.6. Are we sure that 4879 is not a recent regression ? - Devang

.... >> >> No, the bigger patch should not go into 2.6. Devang, can you >> please prepare a version of this patch that applies cleanly to the >> 2.6 branch? >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090831/086443.html > > hmmm... r81058 fixes a bug in the code that I added as part of > r79742. We definitely do not want to add r79742 in 2.6. Are we sure > that 4879 is not a recent regression ? Ok, if 2.6 is not affected, then we definitely don't want to mess with it. Thanks. -Chris

On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > 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. No, the bigger patch should not go into 2.6. Devang, can you please prepare a