[clang] [clang][bytecode] Stack-allocate bottom function frame (PR #125253)

vitalybuka wrote: Looks like from this patch https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/94/builds/4194/steps/17/logs/stdio https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/125253 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cg

[clang] [clang][bytecode] Stack-allocate bottom function frame (PR #125253)

vitalybuka wrote: > Looks like from this patch > https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/94/builds/4194/steps/17/logs/stdio I see it's alread reverted and green. Still the URL with stack traces may help to fix the issue. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/125253 ___

[clang] [clang][bytecode] Stack-allocate bottom function frame (PR #125253)

@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ bool InterpState::inConstantContext() const { } InterpState::~InterpState() { - while (Current) { + while (Current && !Current->isBottomFrame()) { vitalybuka wrote: Some reordering is needed for "InterpState S;" and "InterpFrame BottomFram

[clang] [clang][bytecode] Stack-allocate bottom function frame (PR #125253)

tbaederr wrote: Damn, thanks for the revert. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/125253 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang][bytecode] Stack-allocate bottom function frame (PR #125253)

slackito wrote: The problem described above also reproduced in one of the buildbots: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/164/builds/6922/steps/17/logs/stdio I'll revert this patch. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/125253 ___ cfe-commits

[clang] [clang][bytecode] Stack-allocate bottom function frame (PR #125253)

@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ bool InterpState::inConstantContext() const { } InterpState::~InterpState() { - while (Current) { + while (Current && !Current->isBottomFrame()) { slackito wrote: This is causing use-after-destruction errors for me when running clang tests

[clang] [clang][bytecode] Stack-allocate bottom function frame (PR #125253)

https://github.com/tbaederr closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/125253 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang][bytecode] Stack-allocate bottom function frame (PR #125253)

https://github.com/tbaederr updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/125253 >From 797ce103eb62d6b41882d8659bc2e7a700d846d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Timm=20B=C3=A4der?= Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:34:32 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] [clang][bytecode] Stack-allocate bottom functio

[clang] [clang][bytecode] Stack-allocate bottom function frame (PR #125253)

llvmbot wrote: @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Timm Baeder (tbaederr) Changes Instead of heap-allocating it. This is similar to what the current interpeter does. In C, we have no function calls, so the extra heap allocation never makes sense. --- Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/ll

[clang] [clang][bytecode] Stack-allocate bottom function frame (PR #125253)

https://github.com/tbaederr created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/125253 Instead of heap-allocating it. This is similar to what the current interpeter does. In C, we have no function calls, so the extra heap allocation never makes sense. >From 26c07a4b0b5c85de8fa3ab394ece750dac905