LLVM Bugzilla is read-only and represents the historical archive of all LLVM issues filled before November 26, 2021. Use github to submit LLVM bugs

Bug 42474 (release-9.0.0) - [meta] 9.0.0 Release Blockers
Summary: [meta] 9.0.0 Release Blockers
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: release-9.0.0
Product: new-bugs
Classification: Unclassified
Component: new bugs (show other bugs)
Version: 9.0
Hardware: All All
: P release blocker
Assignee: Hans Wennborg
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on: 42861 33236 38491 40483 40674 40692 40761 40771 41010 41212 41388 41727 42475 42513 42575 42586 42603 42646 42665 42667 42669 42670 42675 42677 42678 42679 42685 42711 42712 42715 42719 42724 42725 42739 42740 42752 42760 42763 42769 42775 42781 42790 42791 42812 42819 42823 42824 42826 42829 42833 42836 42843 42855 42857 42859 42884 42887 42890 42891 42893 42907 42921 42926 42927 42935 42962 42966 42978 42985 42988 42991 42992 43011 43018 43021 43030 43056 43059 43062 43074 43095 43103 43118 43121 43132 43137 43148 43159 43167 43178 43196 43204 43222 43225 43230 43233 43236 43243 43244 43268 43309
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2019-07-01 16:09 PDT by Tom Stellard
Modified: 2020-09-25 16:06 PDT (History)
21 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed By Commit(s):

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Tom Stellard 2019-07-01 16:09:28 PDT 

    


    


      



        
          Comment 1
        

        
          Brian Cain

        

        
        

        
          2019-07-26 08:38:26 PDT
        

      






Hans could we consider https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40692 to be a blocker for 9.0?

    


    


      



        
          Comment 2
        

        
          Hans Wennborg

        

        
        

        
          2019-07-26 10:39:38 PDT
        

      






(In reply to Brian Cain from comment #1)
> Hans could we consider https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40692 to be a
> blocker for 9.0?

Yes, added it.

    


    


      



        
          Comment 3
        

        
          Brian Gesiak

        

        
        

        
          2019-07-30 08:13:55 PDT
        

      






I added https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42827 as a blocker, please triage as appropriate. Thank you!

    


    


      



        
          Comment 4
        

        
          Johannes Doerfert

        

        
        

        
          2019-07-30 22:24:05 PDT
        

      






(In reply to Hans Wennborg from comment #2)
> (In reply to Brian Cain from comment #1)
> > Hans could we consider https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40692 to be a
> > blocker for 9.0?
> 
> Yes, added it.

Fixed in r367387. Do I need to create a new bug as a merge request?

    


    


      



        
          Comment 5
        

        
          Hans Wennborg

        

        
        

        
          2019-08-06 04:24:44 PDT
        

      






> Fixed in r367387. Do I need to create a new bug as a merge request?

(Forgot to reply here: no, I've merged it already as commented on the bug.)

    


    


      



        
          Comment 6
        

        
          Brooks Davis

        

        
        

        
          2019-08-07 11:06:04 PDT
        

      






I'd like to nominate https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42921 as blocker.  I'm hoping it's easy and low risk for someone who knows the right part of the build system.

    


    


      



        
          Comment 7
        

        
          Jörg Sonnenberger

        

        
        

        
          2019-08-07 15:15:23 PDT
        

      






Please merge r368104 (clang) and r367750 (LLVM) part. This fixes a regression since the 8.0 release. One part for addressing the issues for -O0 is still under review, but improving the situation for optimized builds is already a huge step.

    


    


      



        
          Comment 8
        

        
          Hans Wennborg

        

        
        

        
          2019-08-09 02:15:23 PDT
        

      






(In reply to Jörg Sonnenberger from comment #7)
> Please merge r368104 (clang) and r367750 (LLVM) part. This fixes a
> regression since the 8.0 release. One part for addressing the issues for -O0
> is still under review, but improving the situation for optimized builds is
> already a huge step.

I started with the LLVM patch, but it doesn't apply cleanly on the branch, for example, RISCVTargetLowering::getConstraintType() didn't exist when we branched.

Jörg or Bill, could you prepare a patch that applies cleanly against the branch?

    


    


      



        
          Comment 9
        

        
          Hans Wennborg

        

        
        

        
          2019-08-09 02:48:55 PDT
        

      






(In reply to Hans Wennborg from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jörg Sonnenberger from comment #7)
> > Please merge r368104 (clang) and r367750 (LLVM) part. This fixes a
> > regression since the 8.0 release. One part for addressing the issues for -O0
> > is still under review, but improving the situation for optimized builds is
> > already a huge step.
> 
> I started with the LLVM patch, but it doesn't apply cleanly on the branch,
> for example, RISCVTargetLowering::getConstraintType() didn't exist when we
> branched.
> 
> Jörg or Bill, could you prepare a patch that applies cleanly against the
> branch?

Actually, I just ended up merging r367403 to unblock it.

I've merged r367750 in r368421 and r368104(+368202) in r368422.

    


    


      



        
          Comment 10
        

        
          Brent Royal-Gordon

        

        
        

        
          2019-08-16 11:31:54 PDT
        

      






Should https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43021 be a blocker? A reviewer of the fix suggested it should be.

    


    


      



        
          Comment 11
        

        
          Zoe Carver

        

        
        

        
          2019-08-18 12:32:16 PDT
        

      






is_base_of_union.pass.cpp fails in C++03. Maybe it should be a release blocker?

    


    


      



        
          Comment 12
        

        
          Zoe Carver

        

        
        

        
          2019-08-19 09:06:47 PDT
        

      






Nevermind, that is just on apple-clang-11.0.

    


    


      



        
          Comment 13
        

        
          Hans Wennborg

        

        
        

        
          2019-08-20 02:37:23 PDT
        

      






(In reply to Brent Royal-Gordon from comment #10)
> Should https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43021 be a blocker? A reviewer
> of the fix suggested it should be.

Yes, that seems reasonable. I see it's marked as a blocker now.

    


    


      



        
          Comment 14
        

        
          Chris Clearwater

        

        
        

        
          2019-08-29 10:39:21 PDT
        

      






Can https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42924 be considered a blocker? It is causing timeouts for us when building with AddressSanitizer.

    


    


      



        
          Comment 15
        

        
          Hans Wennborg

        

        
        

        
          2019-08-30 01:58:24 PDT
        

      






(In reply to Chris Clearwater from comment #14)
> Can https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42924 be considered a blocker? It
> is causing timeouts for us when building with AddressSanitizer.

Sorry, I think it's too late to do anything about it for 9.0.0. I've put in on my list of things for 9.0.1.

    


    


      



        
          Comment 16
        

        
          Bowen.Lee

        

        
        

        
          2019-09-01 19:12:30 PDT
        

      






Please https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42843 Clang-cl -std=c++17 doesn't handle the constexpr symbol correctly. I looked at the recent clang commit. No one seems to be dealing with this issue. If this release is not blocked, clang 9.0 may fail on Windows.

    


    


      



        
          Comment 17
        

        
          Bowen.Lee

        

        
        

        
          2019-09-01 19:15:49 PDT
        

      






(In reply to Bowen.Lee from comment #16)
> Please https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42843 Clang-cl -std=c++17
> doesn't handle the constexpr symbol correctly. I looked at the recent clang
> commit. No one seems to be dealing with this issue. If this release is not
> blocked, clang 9.0 may fail on Windows.

Sorry, here is a correction, clang-cl -std=c++14 (9.0) did not handle constexpr, not -std=c++17.

    


    


      



        
          Comment 18
        

        
          Hans Wennborg

        

        
        

        
          2019-09-02 01:13:43 PDT
        

      






(In reply to Bowen.Lee from comment #17)
> (In reply to Bowen.Lee from comment #16)
> > Please https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42843 Clang-cl -std=c++17
> > doesn't handle the constexpr symbol correctly. I looked at the recent clang
> > commit. No one seems to be dealing with this issue. If this release is not
> > blocked, clang 9.0 may fail on Windows.
> 
> Sorry, here is a correction, clang-cl -std=c++14 (9.0) did not handle
> constexpr, not -std=c++17.

I had not seen this before. I'll take a look and reply on the bug.

    


    


      



        
          Comment 19
        

        
          Joseph Tremoulet

        

        
        

        
          2019-09-05 11:02:53 PDT
        

      






I'd like to request that 43229 get triaged, and considered for 9.0.1 if not 9.0.0 .  Thanks.

    


    


      



        
          Comment 20
        

        
          Hans Wennborg

        

        
        

        
          2019-09-06 00:49:15 PDT
        

      






(In reply to Joseph Tremoulet from comment #19)
> I'd like to request that 43229 get triaged, and considered for 9.0.1 if not
> 9.0.0 .  Thanks.

I've put it on my 9.0.1 list.

    


    


      



        
          Comment 21
        

        
          Hans Wennborg

        

        
        

        
          2019-09-19 06:21:56 PDT
        

      






The -final tag is in.

9.0.1 blockers are tracked by https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43360