elizafox added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12834#316988, @foutrelis wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12834#314136, @elizafox wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12834#311890, @foutrelis wrote: > > > > > We have received a few reports of clang crashes after applying the > > > abi_tag support patch to our llvm/clang package in Arch Linux. > > > > > > Why would you put a patch clearly marked as "needs review" into a > > distribution?!?!?!?! > > > We waited 6 months before switching to the new ABI in libstdc++. Ideally, we > would have waited until the patch was reviewed and merged but did not want to > wait much longer. I also (wrongly) considered the patch to be relative stable. What would make you believe this was stable?! This patch has known differences in ABI anyway. > > > > In any case, the recursion source seems obvious to me, but I don't know how > > to add patches to this reviewboard item. > > > If the correction is obvious as well and not very complex, would you mind > sharing it? I see the recursion source, but I don't know if my fix would be "correct," as I do not know enough about the new ABI nor GCC's internals (and therefore cross-checking it) to ensure it will behave correctly. I'm erring on the side of caution for now. Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D12834 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
