2.6 request - Bug 4879

First-- thanks to Daniel Dunbar for reporting this issue from my earlier coarse report on IRC and to Devang Patel for fixing it.

I'm writing to request that this fix (r81058) find its way into the 2.6 release. Code compiled with clang that uses VLAs is horribly broken without r81058 (at least on x86-64). I don't know if it has any other implications but it's definitely greatly stabilizing for our code base.

Thanks,

Mike

PS -- I am not subscribed to this list.

First-- thanks to Daniel Dunbar for reporting this issue from my

earlier coarse report on IRC and to Devang Patel for fixing it.

I'm writing to request that this fix (r81058) find its way into the
2.6 release. Code compiled with clang that uses VLAs is horribly
broken without r81058 (at least on x86-64). I don't know if it has
any other implications but it's definitely greatly stabilizing for our
code base.

Makes sense.

Tanya, please pull http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090831/086443.html into 2.6 when convenient, thanks!

-Chris

First-- thanks to Daniel Dunbar for reporting this issue from my

earlier coarse report on IRC and to Devang Patel for fixing it.

I’m writing to request that this fix (r81058) find its way into the

2.6 release. Code compiled with clang that uses VLAs is horribly

broken without r81058 (at least on x86-64). I don’t know if it has

any other implications but it’s definitely greatly stabilizing for our

code base.

Makes sense.

Tanya, please pull http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090831/086443.html into 2.6 when convenient, thanks!

This can not go into 2.6, because r79742 is not in 2.6:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090817/085284.html

Should this really be a release candidate? Its changing quite a bit and its not causing a regression.

-Tanya

No, the bigger patch should not go into 2.6. Devang, can you please prepare a version of this patch that applies cleanly to the 2.6 branch?

http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090831/086443.html

-Chris

hmmm... r81058 fixes a bug in the code that I added as part of r79742. We definitely do not want to add r79742 in 2.6. Are we sure that 4879 is not a recent regression ?

Ok, if 2.6 is not affected, then we definitely don't want to mess with it. Thanks.

-Chris

I believe the original reporter was using 2.6. We should confirm it
isn't in 2.6, since if it is I suspect it is a regression?

Michael, are you using 2.6 or top of tree?

- Daniel