This is the same as rc5 plus one very minor change (r371969) that
still seemed good to pick up.
I'm not allocating extra time for testing this one, expecting to tag
'final' in a day or two unless any new problem arises. If you still
have cycles to spare, testing is still very much appreciated of
course.
As usual, please file bug reports about any issues you find, marking
them blocking of https://llvm.org/PR42474
Hi,
I've updated OpenMandriva to it, all arches, no problems.
Even RISC-V is starting to work (though still a long way from being able to replace gcc on that arch). Unless someone asks me to, I won't send bug reports for what's still failing there because the code already has lots of comments saying it's broken (e.g. abi is always assumed to be ilp32 even when the target system is lp64d).
One RISC-V thing that's broken without a corresponding comment [at least one that I've found] is C++ linkage -- passing the right flags makes C applications compile (and work) with clang, but clang++ fails:
# clang++ -march=rv64imafdc -mabi=lp64d test.cpp
/usr/bin/ld: error in /tmp/test-24247e.o(.eh_frame); no .eh_frame_hdr table will be created
Thank you for trying the RISC-V backend, and looking for comments in the backend before filing issues.
The RISC-V backend has only recently become stable, and there are indeed some bugs in the trickier parts of the backend.
We (lowRISC and other RISC-V backend contributors) would welcome you to file bugs against the backend, but we do not feel these bugs should block the release, as they are not regressions.
Is it expected that after moving 7.1.0 and 8.0.1 to GitHub, 9.0.0 is
again distributed via releases.llvm.org? Not that I care either way but
it's really frustrating to have to update URLs back and forth.
It's clearly not an official llvm/clang release or anything like that like the other ones posted here in this thread, but still a convenient package of compiler and sdk, and available for both x86 and arm windows (in addition to use as cross compiler from linux).
I know it's too late to report problems but I'm wondering if anybody
else sees additional test failures after switching from git checkout to
source tarballs. I'm currently investigating as to why.