FWIW - I had some thoughts on this a while back: https://reviews.llvm.org/D4313
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 4:54 AM Roman Lebedev via Phabricator via llvm-commits <llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > lebedev.ri added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43779#1061444, @alexfh wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43779#1061043, @lebedev.ri wrote: > > > > > Hmm. > > > Got back to this issue. > > > > > > Not reproducible with gcc-4.8.5 and gcc-4.9.3 in ubuntu 16.04 chroot. > > > *Reproducible* with gcc-4.8.4 and gcc-4.9.2 in debian oldstable > (Jessie) chroot. > > > So one might assume that it was fixed. > > > > > > I did try to creduce the crasher, but not not much success, since gcc > takes 10+ sec to crash. > > > > > > That's unfortunate, but it could be even worse. My experience with > creducing crashes is that the process can take up to several days. In this > case, however, we know what changes cause the crash and it should be > possible to construct the test case manually instead of creducing it. > > > > > Should i simply try to re-commit and see if the buildbots got upgraded > so this is no longer an issue? > > > > > > I wouldn't expect buildbots to have been upgraded without someone doing > this on purpose. If you have the list of buildbots that crashed, you could > look at their recent logs to figure out which GCC version they are using > now. > > Yes, it seems they weren't upgraded yet as of this time. > > > It *might* be fine to require a patched version of GCC, but in that case > you would have to: > > 0. Ask llvm-dev+cfe-dev whether anyone has concerns in raising the > minimum required version of GCC > > Yep, did that right after posting that comment, > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-April/122438.html > > > 1. Fix the documentation, in particular this list: > https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#software and these > instructions: > https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#getting-a-modern-host-c-toolchain > > 2. Get buildbot maintainers to upgrade their GCC to at least the new > required version > > > > An alternative would be to try working around the bug. > > > > > Repository: > rL LLVM > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D43779 > > > > _______________________________________________ > llvm-commits mailing list > llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
