[LLVMdev] 3.5.1 Testing Phase Begins

[Daniel Sanders]

Thanks. Merged in r224510

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Stellard [mailto:tom at stellard.net]
> Sent: 17 December 2014 18:13
> To: Daniel Sanders
> Cc: Sebastian Dreßler; Ben Pope; Nikola Smiljanic; llvmdev
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] 3.5.1 Testing Phase Begins
> 
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:59:58AM +0000, Daniel Sanders wrote:
> > Committed to trunk as r224333.
> >
> > Tom: Can you approve merging this to the branch? Llvm-commits seems to
> be a bit behind at the moment so here's a link to the Phabricator page
> http://reviews.llvm.org/rL224333.
> >
> 
> LGTM. Go ahead and merge.
> 
> -Tom
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sebastian Dreßler [mailto:sebastian.dressler at gmail.com]
> > > Sent: 16 December 2014 11:07
> > > To: Daniel Sanders
> > > Cc: Ben Pope; Nikola Smiljanic; llvmdev
> > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] 3.5.1 Testing Phase Begins
> > >
> > > Yeah, I was just puzzled :D No worries.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Sebastian
> > >
> > > 2014-12-16 11:09 GMT+01:00 Daniel Sanders
> <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com>:
> > > > It looks like I missed that email completely, I started out replying to
> > > > Nikola and Hans which is why I was talking about Windows rather than OS
> > > X.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've just found your first email in my llvmdev folder and I think I see what
> > > > happened. My mail rules deliver llvmdev messages to a folder named
> > > llvmdev
> > > > unless I'm directly addressed in which case it delivers to my inbox. It
> > > > looks like you pruned the recipient list when you replied to Tom's email so
> > > > that one email was delivered to llvmdev while the rest of the thread was
> > > > delivered to my inbox. Then when I replied to Hans and Nikola it seems I
> > > > pruned the recipient list (I don't remember doing this and it's unusual for
> > > > me but that's what the emails say). You presumably saw my email and
> > > thought
> > > > I was replying to you and things got confused from there.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'll commit that patch to the trunk and ask Tom for permission to merge
> it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: sebastian.dressler at gmail.com
> > > [mailto:sebastian.dressler at gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: 16 December 2014 05:20
> > > > To: Daniel Sanders
> > > > Cc: Ben Pope; Nikola Smiljanic; llvmdev
> > > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] 3.5.1 Testing Phase Begins
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 15.12.2014, at 23:01, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: sebastian.dressler at gmail.com [sebastian.dressler at gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: 15 December 2014 18:41
> > > > To: Daniel Sanders
> > > > Cc: Ben Pope; Nikola Smiljanic; llvmdev
> > > > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] 3.5.1 Testing Phase Begins
> > > >
> > > > For sake of completeness, I copy the output again:
> > > >
> > > > Command Output (stderr): […]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's given me enough to figure out the problem. %gp_rel is only used
> > > when
> > > > the small data section is enabled and that's only supposed to be the case
> > > > for bare-metal. However, the guard is actually a test for 'is not Linux' and
> > > > this condition is of course true for windows.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just out of curiosity: this information was also contained in my initial
> > > > mail, did you probably overlook it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's not a new bug (it was in 3.5.0 too) but the testcase is new. Does the
> > > > attached patch fix the problem for you?<arguments-struct.patch>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it fixes it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Sebastian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >