[PATCH] D120305: [Driver] Default CLANG_DEFAULT_PIE_ON_LINUX to ON

[Tom Stellard via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

tstellar added a comment.

In D120305#3347108 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305#3347108>, @MaskRay wrote:

> In D120305#3347103 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305#3347103>, @tstellar wrote:
>
>> In D120305#3347058 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305#3347058>, @nemanjai wrote:
>>
>>> In D120305#3346880 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305#3346880>, @MaskRay wrote:
>>>
>>>> While I feel sorry for leaving clang-ppc64le-rhel red for some time and am willing to fix issues if I have access to a ppc64 machine (especially compiler-rt ones that I care about),
>>>> I feel uncomfortably if a group just bluntly request "please pull this patch" when apparently (a) there is a better approach (explicitly setting CLANG_DEFAULT_PIE_ON_LINUX=OFF) and (b) there is something a bot maintainer can do
>>>> and (c) there is just some inherent stability problem (in this case, consider not enabling the testing when the target is still unstable) that is causing not only this issue, but various other reports (as I watch sanitizer failures quite closely and ppc64 often tends to be the outlier thing)
>>>
>>> Statements like this seem to be at odds with this community's culture (or at least the way I understand it).
>>> As long as I have been a member of this community, the guidance for patches that break bots is to fix it immediately if the fix is obvious/trivial and if it isn't, to pull the patch until a solution can be found. I am not aware of any changes to this policy. I would also like to add that this approach serves most other members of the community quite well and at least I personally don't see much opposition to this. Frankly, the only person I have ever received a response that amounts to "I would rather not" when asking them to pull a patch that breaks bots is yourself.
>>
>> @nemanjai Is correct here.
>
> May I beg that you read my reply first and give more evidence when standing by one party?
> You as a https://foundation.llvm.org/docs/board/ member, your words weigh a lot, but with great power comes great responsibility, so every judgement needs to be made prudently.
>
>> @MaskRay  I feel like we are starting to repeat the same discussion we had with the start-stop-gc patches, and I would like to have a better outcome this time.  Can you please just revert the patch and then we can discuss the next steps.
>
> Everyone wants to discuss start-stop-gc can go to https://discourse.llvm.org/t/lld-default-nostart-stop-gc-default-on-release-13-x-and-main/5369
> Please don't conflate things here. I felt bad that people used an unguaranteed behavior as granted and accused/attacked me of changes.
> I think time has proved my correctness: I don't think anyone sees new wacky things in this area.

The issue here has nothing to do with the technical merits of the patch or what the root cause of the problem is.  The policy for this project is that if you commit a patch that breaks someone's configuration (especially a buildbot), then it needs to be fixed quickly or reverted.  I get that this policy can be frustrating as a committer when you feel your patch is correct, and the real problem is elsewhere, but this is still the policy and it should be followed.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D120305