>>> There was a silent API breakage (same API, different behavior, how nice…)
>>> in llvm main that Andres figured out, which will have to be fixed at some
>>> point, so this is reminder that it is still a todo…
>>
>> If it were *our* todo, that would be one thing; but it isn't.
>
> Over on the other thread[1] we learned that this is an API change
> affecting reference counting semantics[2], so unless there is some
> discussion somewhere about reverting the LLVM change that I'm unaware
> of, I'm guessing we're going to need to change our code sooner or
> later.
Indeed, I'm afraid the solution will have to be on pg side.
> I have a bleeding edge LLVM on my dev machine, and I'm willing to try to
> reproduce the crash and write the trivial patch (that is, figure out the
> right preprocessor incantation to detect the version or feature, and
> bump the reference count as appropriate), if Andres and/or Fabien aren't
> already on the case.
I'm not in the case, I'm only the one running the farm animal which barks
too annoyingly for Tom.
--
Fabien.