From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 19 00:54:50 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 099EDE06; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:54:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-x233.google.com (mail-ig0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD4C9DB6; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id r2so109923igi.12 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:54:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/bjgFbIJ62oloQS9nRXmIqKBpfle9/1oQ5jL8+sOc34=; b=sJ/6LjM36c2k9eybmHt00GCD3Lk6YpEg8na4ZEubIk1x5JYQyJP1+aKz07p6cPNpqZ iTShI0wnsIabCzZIX7t9gAriIef4sD+BgsJqoxVXOrVdYLqXAb9iHhiphgdne8Wm6dkl XyEpINnNR3Qc9RbE07pdoq9C8GSldelBWruUvGutsMWoxfbwsDLbZ+amKMYtNf2OzQf3 ks5FUb62z9G7oVA58k/AEqyEkRgnfvPwsnlgBg8Lf1RMpuXL08Ql568B0FnQn8eOiRlW cRQXNIvvFzd35un+bETvw4E4b7z45IZfX7M6qRenfv4TLHKKTWUXgEnhYzDp3hDcJZxW aIDA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.172.6 with SMTP id nw6mr156850icc.89.1416358489153; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:54:49 -0800 (PST) Sender: kob6558@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.7.169 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:54:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <80988786-733F-4633-ADFB-844FD0DF78EE@FreeBSD.org> References: <20140228143606.GD29171@hades.panopticon> <20140228154328.GA13454@hades.panopticon> <20140922231016.GA1301@hades.panopticon> <542105A3.4090507@iki.fi> <98949B82-4109-4628-BE4E-9817D5614D8A@FreeBSD.org> <20140923114447.GB1301@hades.panopticon> <0DFE857D-C33C-49BF-BCCE-16E89DB77AF1@FreeBSD.org> <20141118200529.GC62527@hades.panopticon> <80988786-733F-4633-ADFB-844FD0DF78EE@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:54:49 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: zYI_ryhhljpk4UBTMw63BXhDPIU Message-ID: Subject: Re: clang (both 3.3 and 3.4) OOM crashes on HEAD From: Kevin Oberman To: Dimitry Andric Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18-1 Cc: FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List , freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:54:50 -0000 On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 18 Nov 2014, at 21:05, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: > > > > * Dimitry Andric (dim@FreeBSD.org) wrote: > > > >>>>> This seems to be same issue as in > >>>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20893 for which there is patch > >>>>> review going > >>>>> on > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140922/236415.html > . > >>>>> > >>>>> Your test case is reproducible with the trunk of llvm/clang and > >>>>> the patch in review resolves it. Other workaround is to disable > >>>>> generation of debug information by removing -g flag. > >>>> > >>>> Hm, I had assumed this problem was fixed by importing r203311 from > >>>> upstream llvm trunk, in head r263313. But apparently it is not. > >>>> > >>>> The upstream patch seems to fix your specific test case, but it is > still > >>>> in review, so I prefer to wait until it is actually committed, before > I > >>>> import it. > >>> > >>> Which worries me is what we do if it's not reviewd until the release. > We > >>> can't just tell users to "remove -g flag", can't we? > >> > >> I don't expect the review to take very long, but this is how it goes > >> with releases. At some point, the release is cut, some bugs don't get > >> fixed, and you will simply have to live with them. > >> > >> In any case, it entirely depends on how many ports it affects. I have > >> the impression it is just a few particular ports having this issue? > > > > The bug seem to have been fixed: > > > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20893 > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19031 > > > > This is unfortunately too late for 10.1, but can we possibly have the > > fix backported into HEAD and 10-STABLE? > > Yes, I have already imported the fix in r274442; I will probably get > the MFC reminder tomorrow. > > I'm sorry the fix could not make it into 10.1, but apparently the first > version of it was not the proper way of solving the problem. The final > version took quite a while, unfortunately. > > -Dimitry > > This seems to me like something that deserves an errata note. At the least, it will greatly deduce the number error reports to this list and the bug reports to bugzilla. (Well, maybe not, but I can hope.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com