Do not merge: Apply upstream aarch64 consecutive register fix (11.x)

conda-forge / llvmdev-feedstock

A conda-smithy repository for llvmdev.

BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License

8 stars 41 forks source link

Do not merge: Apply upstream aarch64 consecutive register fix (11.x) #167

Closed hmaarrfk closed 2 years ago

hmaarrfk commented 2 years ago

Closes #164

Checklist

[ ] Used a personal fork of the feedstock to propose changes
[ ] Bumped the build number (if the version is unchanged)
[ ] Reset the build number to 0 (if the version changed)
[ ] Re-rendered with the latest conda-smithy (Use the phrase code>@<space/conda-forge-admin, please rerender in a comment in this PR for automated rerendering)
[ ] Ensured the license file is being packaged.

conda-forge-linter commented 2 years ago

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipe) and found it was in an excellent condition.

hmaarrfk commented 2 years ago

@conda-forge-admin please rerender

hmaarrfk commented 2 years ago

Thank you for pointing this out. I'm going to let this run, to see if holding back the compiler helps osx for educational purposes.

hmaarrfk commented 2 years ago

Seems like OSX didn't get fixed from this.

gmarkall commented 2 years ago

This is an ABI breakage. See the last comment in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46996

Isn't that only the case when the LLVM 12-specific version of the patch is applied to LLVM 12? It looks like the version applied to the LLVM 11 branch was OK: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46996#c9

isuruf commented 2 years ago

Why do you think it's not an ABI breakage for LLVM 11? The patch for LLVM 11 changes the signature for a public method which changes the name mangling and therefore is an ABI breakage

gmarkall commented 2 years ago

Why do you think it's not an ABI breakage for LLVM 11? The patch for LLVM 11 changes the signature for a public method which changes the name mangling and therefore is an ABI breakage

Thanks for the clarification, I was wrong about this. I'd misunderstood some of the discussion on the LLVM bug which lead me to believe that the ABI was the same for LLVM 11 but differed for LLVM 12.