Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40
От
Dmitry Dolgov
Тема
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40
Дата
Msg-id
20240410201527.sejc52ne3t4l4xkh@erthalion.local
Ответ на
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 (Thomas Munro)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 12:43:23PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 10:05 PM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> wrote: > > + /* In assertion builds, run the LLVM verify pass. */ > > +#ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING > > + LLVMPassBuilderOptionsSetVerifyEach(options, true); > > +#endif > > Thanks, that seems nicer. I think the question is whether it will > slow down build farm/CI/local meson test runs to a degree that exceeds > its value. Another option would be to have some other opt-in macro, > like the existing #ifdef LLVM_PASS_DEBUG, for people who maintain > JIT-related stuff to turn on. Oh, I see. I'm afraid I don't have enough knowledge of the CI pipeline, but at least locally for me installcheck became only few percent slower with the verify pass. > Supposing we go with USE_ASSERT_CHECKING, I have another question: > > - const char *nm = "llvm.lifetime.end.p0i8"; > + const char *nm = "llvm.lifetime.end.p0"; > > Was that a mistake, or did the mangling rules change in some version? I'm not sure, but inclined to think it's the same as with noundef -- a mistake, which was revealed in some recent version of LLVM. From what I understand the suffix i8 indicates an overloaded argument of that type, which is probably not needed. At the same time I can't get this error from the verify pass with LLVM-12 or LLVM-15 (I have those at hand by accident). To make it even more confusing I've found a few similar examples in other projects, where this was really triggered by an issue in LLVM [1]. [1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/102738
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Tom Lane
Дата: