[PATCH] D152818: [Clang] Make template instantiations respect pragma FENV_ACCESS state at point-of-definition

Wed Jun 28 11:05:43 PDT 2023

aaron.ballman added a comment.

In D152818#4456797 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152818#4456797>, @zahiraam wrote:

> In D152818#4456717 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152818#4456717>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
>
>> In D152818#4456510 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152818#4456510>, @zahiraam wrote:
>>
>>> In D152818#4456483 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152818#4456483>, @nicolerabjohn wrote:
>>>
>>>> In D152818#4442116 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152818#4442116>, @rjmccall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Does https://reviews.llvm.org/D143241 solve the original problem here, or is there something deeper?
>>>>
>>>> It does not solve the problem, at least for my test case (linked in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/63063) - we still hit the assertion.
>>>
>>> Sorry! I will not be able to work on this until about September! I haven't tried to reproduce the issue with the test case in the link above.
>>
>> We branch for the 17 release at the end of July, so I'm wondering whether there's anything we need to revert related to this? It looks like this assertion started firing in Clang 12.0.0 (https://cexplorer.testlabs.pro/z/Wh9o8W), so this doesn't seem to be a regression, but confirmation would be appreciated.
>
> The code that is generating the assertion has been introduced by this patch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80462 
> I can checkout that commit and see if the test case fails with it? Would that be a good experiment to do?

No need -- so long as we're all agreed that we haven't regressed anything between Clang 16 and Clang 17 here, that's all I'm really after.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D152818/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D152818