aaron.ballman added a comment. 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). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131858/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131858 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
