[PATCH] D19770: Add FixedSizeStorage to TrailingObjects; NFC

[Aaron Ballman via cfe-commits]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron.ballman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Hubert Tong
> <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Working to reverse the patch. I need someone with MSVC to help me.
>
> I'll help out with it when I get a moment (hopefully today or this weekend).

I'm not certain there's a way *to* help out with this. I think this is
a bug with MSVC (I'm using 2015). It is claiming this syntax is
invalid, but it certainly looks valid to me. If you can snag STL to
see what he thinks, that may be the quickest way to find out.

~Aaron

>
> ~Aaron
>
>>
>> -- HT
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron.ballman at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Hubert Tong
>>> <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron.ballman at gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Hubert Tong
>>> >> <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Aaron Ballman
>>> >> > <aaron.ballman at gmail.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> aaron.ballman added a comment.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Did Richard sign off on this off-line? Also, this has caused a bot
>>> >> >> failure:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > That was my understanding.
>>> >>
>>> >> Ah, I meant, "I approve this, but wait for Richard to explicitly
>>> >> approve before committing." I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear
>>> >> enough! If Richard okayed it offline with you, that's fine (but he
>>> >> should also sign off in phab, or post a comment) so everyone following
>>> >> the thread knows.
>>> >
>>> > I meant that my understanding is that Richard has okayed it offline.
>>>
>>> Thank you for the clarification.
>>>
>>> > As for the bot failure, it appears it applies local patches to avoid
>>> > compiler bugs.
>>> > I am not sure what the policy is if a bot failure has more to do with
>>> > the
>>> > bot set-up than the change (assuming that is the case here).
>>> > In any case, I am not sure I can resolve the failure without cooperation
>>> > from the bot owner.
>>>
>>> More bots have gone red in the meantime:
>>>
>>> 8:07 AM <llvmbb> build #7517 of
>>> llvm-clang-lld-x86_64-scei-ps4-windows10pro-fast is complete: Failure
>>> [failed build]  Build details are at
>>>
>>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-clang-lld-x86_64-scei-ps4-windows10pro-fast/builds/7517
>>>  blamelist: grimar, hubert.reinterpretcast
>>> 8:12 AM <llvmbb> build #13373 of clang-x64-ninja-win7 is complete:
>>> Failure [failed build stage 1]  Build details are at
>>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x64-ninja-win7/builds/13373
>>> blamelist: hubert.reinterpretcast
>>>
>>> Are these also failing due to local patches on the bots?
>>>
>>> ~Aaron
>>>
>>> >
>>> > -- HT
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ~Aaron
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 7:57 AM <bb-chapuni> build #4390 of ninja-clang-i686-msc19-R is
>>> >> >> complete:
>>> >> >> Failure [failed build_clang_tools_1]  Build details are at
>>> >> >> http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/ninja-clang-i686-msc19-R/builds/4390
>>> >> >> blamelist:
>>> >> >> Hubert Tong <hubert.reinterpretcast at gmail.com>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> http://reviews.llvm.org/D19770
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>