[LLVMdev] Proposed patches for Clang 3.5.1

[Daniel Sanders]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Stellard [mailto:tom at stellard.net]
> Sent: 29 November 2014 02:02
> To: Daniel Sanders
> Cc: Eric Christopher; Dr D. Chisnall; LLVM Developers Mailing List
> (llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu)
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposed patches for Clang 3.5.1
> 
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 03:38:49PM +0000, Daniel Sanders wrote:
> > > > > I've successfully run the simple vararg test (passing 10 int's in varargs,
> > > > passing them in a va_list, then printing each one) for all ABI's/endians
> and
> > > > mixtures of GCC/Clang.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've also run the first 5,000 ABITestGen.py generated tests for all
> > > > ABI's/Endians. Big-endian O32 shows a single failure involving small
> > > structures
> > > > (this is not a regression). Big-endian N32 shows about a dozen failures
> that
> > > > do not fail on the trunk but aren't regressions either. All other ABI's and
> > > > Endians are passing successfully. Even with those big-endian N32
> failures
> > > > (which fail without the patches too), this status is a big improvement on
> the
> > > > status without the patches so I'm inclined to think we should merge and
> fix
> > > > the remaining issues in 3.5.2 (assuming we do one).
> > > > > Tom: Is that ok with you?
> > > > > David: Are you using big-endian N32 or N64?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm running an event with some students for most of today. I'll check
> my
> > > > emails when I can and I'll have my laptop but I probably won't be able to
> > > > merge anything until after 5pm GMT (9am PST). I'll leave more ABI tests
> > > > running in the meantime.
> > > >
> > > > I will try to look at the patches today.  I'm going to delay the release a
> week
> > > > or so, because of all the merge requests I've received, so there is no
> rush.
> > >
> > > That's a relief :-). I'll see if I can fix the N32 issues that remain on this
> branch.
> > >
> > > So far, I've run the first 90,000 tests for each ABI/endian with only the
> failures
> > > explained above.
> >
> > Just a quick update. The big-endian N32 failures have turned out to be
> false-positives. According to the logs, a shell script was briefly unavailable
> when it tried to run these tests. I've re-run them and they pass now. The
> only failure I know of is the single big-endian O32 failure.
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> I think these look OK to merge, I just have a few requests:
> 
> 1. Can you remove the git-svn-id tags from the commit messages.
> 
> 2. Can you add:
> 
> Merging r123456:
> 
> To the first line of the commit messages so we have a record of which
> commit it came from.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom

Thanks. I've committed most of them and I'm working through the rest.

One thing I need to mention is that I noticed that I'd missed a patch that silences three 'enumeration value not handled' warnings my patches introduced into the X86 backend. The patch simply adds unreachable cases for [ASZ]ExtUpper to a switch so I figured it would be best to merge it (r218452) straight away rather than waiting for explicit approval. I hope that's ok with you and Nadav. It was committed to the branch as r223021.

By the way, I have a fix for the big-endian O32 failure in my working copy. I just need to add a proper test case and get it reviewed.