It really is too late now. The release has been put to bed, as it were. We’re now waiting for Chris to announce it.
-bw On Dec 31, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Andrew Trick <[email protected]> wrote: > My previous reply didn’t have Bill’s correct email. > > On Dec 31, 2013, at 11:42 AM, Andrew Trick <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Dec 31, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 2013.12.31 at 11:12 -0800, Andrew Trick wrote: >>>> >>>> On Dec 30, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2013.12.30 at 18:47 +0000, Pádraig Brady wrote: >>>>>> On 12/30/2013 12:32 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: >>>>>>> coreutils-8.22 build with clang-3.4 doesn't copy permissions correctly: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> markus@x4 tmp % touch test1 >>>>>>> markus@x4 tmp % chmod 600 test1 >>>>>>> markus@x4 tmp % ls -al test1 >>>>>>> -rw------- 1 markus markus 0 Dec 30 13:25 test1 >>>>>>> markus@x4 tmp % /var/tmp/coreutils-8.22/src/cp test1 test2 >>>>>>> markus@x4 tmp % ls -al test2 >>>>>>> ---------- 1 markus markus 0 Dec 30 13:25 test2 >>>>>>> markus@x4 tmp % >>>>>> >>>>>> Ouch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note as part of the 8.22 release process >>>>>> I did verify that `make check` passed with >>>>>> clang-3.3-3.fc20.x86_64 >>>>>> >>>>>> I've again verified that clang-3.3 passes your test above. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you pinpoint the erroneous code? >>>>>> It does seem like a clang regression TBH. >>>>> >>>>> Started with LLVM r192750 (Enable MI Sched for x86). >>>>> I've opened a LLVM bug here: >>>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18346 >>>>> >>>>> (I will try to come up with a testcase after the holidays) >>>> >>>> To determine whether a bug exists in MI scheduler pass (or downstream) you >>>> can do this: >>>> -mllvm -enable-misched=false. >>>> >>>> Duncan committed a post-3.4 fix, r197503, for a varargs bug exposed by >>>> changes to the SD scheduling policy. >>> >>> Yes, r197503 fixes the issue. Would be nice to get the fix applied >>> before 3.4 gets released... >> >> Yep, it would be nice. But the fix was considered too late 2 weeks ago, so >> it’s even less likely now. I don’t think there’s any way to rerun validation >> at this point. I’m copying Bill who is the authority. >> >> -Andy >
