ro added a comment. In D130566#3682923 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130566#3682923>, @dblaikie wrote:
>> This is all extremely weird, but until the error shows up again, I'll put >> this patch on hold (not yet abandoning since there seems to be no way to >> unabandon if necessary). > > You can abandon and then "reclaim" the revision to reopen it and continue > work. Ah, I missed that: the reclaim action is only offered for abandoned patches, I assume. Thanks. In D130566#3683174 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130566#3683174>, @MaskRay wrote: > I accepted this because this seems a major showstopper and we want to resolve > it for the upcoming major release > But I just recall that clang 14.0.0 has defaulted to DWARF v5 for most ELF > operating systems on all architectures, including Sparc. > I think we need more justification to downgrade the DWARV version. Fully agreed. However, clang 14.0.0 was in a way worse shape on Debian/sparc64 (wouldn't even build), so we wouldn't have noticed. Solaris/sparcv9 wouldn't notice either since it uses the native linker, not GNU ld. >> So far, I had only seen it with the GNU ld 2.38.50 bundled with Debian >> 11/sparc64, but couldn't reproduce on Ubuntu 20.04/x86_64 (neither bundled >> GNU ld 2.34, nor self-compiled 2.38.90) > > Thanks for the additional note. Seems worth investigating whether it is an > issue which should be addressed on GNU ld side. > binutils 2.39 will be released on 2022-08-06 > (https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2022-July/121656.html) and such a > regression style issue should be worked on quickly. Indeed. However, I won't be able to spend much time on this: Linux/sparc64 is only tangential to my work (as a vehicle to test SPARC patches where I want to make sure they don't break that target). I've got enough to do testing binutils 2.39 on Solaris ;-) That said, I've now filed binutils PR binutils PR ld/29424 <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29424>. The binutils maintainers can now decide what the want to do about this, if anything. > The binutils code does suggest it doesn't handle the DWARF v5 features, but I > am curious why older releases don't have the problem. They might if one tried. However, the bundled GNU ld is already 2.38.50. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130566/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130566 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
