erichkeane added a comment. In D131858#4051336 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131858#4051336>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D131858#4050112 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131858#4050112>, @rsmith wrote: > >> In D131858#3957630 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131858#3957630>, @arphaman >> wrote: >> >>> This change has caused a failure in Clang's stage 2 CI on the green dragon >>> Darwin CI: >>> https://green.lab.llvm.org/green/job/clang-stage2-Rthinlto/6390/console. >>> >>> Assertion failed: (lvaluePath->getType() == elemTy && "Unexpected type >>> reference!"), function readAPValue, file >>> /Users/buildslave/jenkins/workspace/clang-stage1-RA/clang-build/tools/clang/include/clang/AST/AbstractBasicReader.inc, >>> line 736. >> >> This assert is simply wrong, and I've removed it in >> rG2009f2450532450a99c1a03d5e2c30f478121839 >> <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG2009f2450532450a99c1a03d5e2c30f478121839> -- >> that change should be safe to cherry-pick into the release branch. It's >> possible for the recomputation of the type after deserialization to result >> in a different type than what we saw when serializing, because >> redeclarations of the same entity can use the same type with different sugar >> -- or even slightly different types in some cases, such as when an array >> bound is added in a redeclaration. The dumps of the types provided by >> @steven_wu confirms that we were just seeing a difference in type sugar in >> this case. >> >>> Assertion failed: (BlockScope.empty() && CurAbbrevs.empty() && "Block >>> imbalance"), function ~BitstreamWriter, file >>> /Users/buildslave/jenkins/workspace/clang-stage1-RA/llvm-project/llvm/include/llvm/Bitstream/BitstreamWriter.h, >>> line 119. >> >> Is this still happening? If so, this looks more serious, and will need >> further investigation. >> >> Can we undo the workaround in https://reviews.llvm.org/D139956 and see if >> the bot is now happy? Or can someone who was seeing problems before >> (@steven_wu?) run a test? > > Thank you for poking at this Richard! However, I think we still need to > revert the functionality in this area unless we're able to make headway on > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/59271 and quickly. FWIW, I ran > into this exact problem yesterday on my dev machine, so the overhead is still > a present concern. If that's something you plan to work on, then I think it'd > make sense for Erich to hold off on starting the revert work to give you a > chance to improve this. But if nobody is actively working on it, we need to > start pulling this back because the branch date is a bit over a week away > (Jan 24). My understanding is that the submitter of that bug did sufficient analysis to determine that https://reviews.llvm.org/D136566 is the cause of his perf regression, having done an analysis the patch before and after. The only reason to revert THIS patch (and the follow-ups, since this is a 'base patch' to the rest) is the report by @steven_wu . SO, @steven_wu: Can ypu please, ASAP, try to reproduce your issue as Richard asked above? IF so, we only have to revert D136566 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D136566>, which should fix our performance issue. (that is, revert the workaround you submitted in https://reviews.llvm.org/D139956, then see if it works?). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131858/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131858 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
