From owner-freebsd-java@freebsd.org Wed Jan 10 19:48:50 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-java@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A8DE72A0D for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:48:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75BE068460 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:48:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 6FC4FE72A0C; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:48:50 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: java@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B187E72A0B for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:48:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51D8D6845E for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:48:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40DC71EE51 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:48:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w0AJmoIL054369 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:48:50 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id w0AJmohK054368 for java@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:48:50 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: java@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 225054] java/openjdk* : fails to build with clang 6.0 (blocks 571 ports) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:48:50 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-patch X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: dim@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: java@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-java@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting Java to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 19:48:50 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D225054 --- Comment #7 from Dimitry Andric --- (In reply to Jan Beich from comment #5) > Dimitry, can you find Clang commit that changed integrated assembler in > order for us to better understand the rationale? Yes, this was caused by https://reviews.llvm.org/rL315899; the changes were= for "better" rep/lock prefix support, but I filed several severe regression bug= s, after noticing these during world and ports builds, see: * https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D35741 (comments after x86 prefixes cause errors ) * https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D35749 (.byte directives after x86 prefixes cause errors) * https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D35831 (labels after x86 prefixes = cause errors) The first bug was fixed fairly quickly, but there has been no movement on t= he other two, and I think it is likely that more edge cases exist. I asked in PR35749 whether the release manager will consider reverting the upstream change in the 6.0.0 branch, since this regressed so much. I will = ask again. > (In reply to Jung-uk Kim from comment #6) > (In reply to Jan Beich from comment #4) >=20 > That's bad. :-( >=20 > Then, I guess we have no choice but to do something like this: >=20 > +-#define LOCK_IF_MP(mp) "cmp $0, " #mp "; je 1f; lock; 1: " > ++#define LOCK_IF_MP(mp) "cmp $0, " #mp "; je 1f; .byte 0xf0; 1: " Yes, that is the workaround I put in my local ports tree too. But I hate i= t :( --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=