vsk added a comment. In D69970#1737814 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69970#1737814>, @dblaikie wrote:
> The failure I am investigating from the original commit of this at Google > probably isn't related to the assertion failure that caused the revert of > this patch/being addressed by this recommit. So if you could hold off a bit > while I try to help provide a reproduction or enough detail for you to > investigate this other internal failure? > > At the moment the details I have is that the resulting assembly has an unused > label/basic block boundary that's resulting in a location 0 (an un-located > instruction placed at the beginning of a basic block uses location zero so it > doesn't flow from the previous BB). Hmm, maybe that's unrelated, though. I > haven't quite nailed it down yet. Thanks for the heads-up. I'm happy to hold off for now. I've also kicked off a stage2 -O3 -gline-tables-only build to be on the safe side. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69970/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69970 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
