elizafox added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12834#316988, @foutrelis wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12834#314136, @elizafox wrote:
>
> > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12834#311890, @foutrelis wrote:
> >
> > > We have received a few reports of clang crashes after applying the
> > > abi_tag support patch to our llvm/clang package in Arch Linux.
> >
> >
> > Why would you put a patch clearly marked as "needs review" into a
> > distribution?!?!?!?!
>
>
> We waited 6 months before switching to the new ABI in libstdc++. Ideally, we
> would have waited until the patch was reviewed and merged but did not want to
> wait much longer. I also (wrongly) considered the patch to be relative stable.
What would make you believe this was stable?! This patch has known differences
in ABI anyway.
>
>
> > In any case, the recursion source seems obvious to me, but I don't know how
> > to add patches to this reviewboard item.
>
>
> If the correction is obvious as well and not very complex, would you mind
> sharing it?
I see the recursion source, but I don't know if my fix would be "correct," as I
do not know enough about the new ABI nor GCC's internals (and therefore
cross-checking it) to ensure it will behave correctly. I'm erring on the side
of caution for now.
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12834
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
