nikic wrote:
Closing this as rejected per previous comments.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86698
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86698
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
efriedma-quic wrote:
Right, the policy doesn't say we can only take regression fixes. We just need
to weight the impact vs. the risk.
Looking at the latest conversation on the bug report this case is pretty
clearly still broken. It's improved in the sense that after the va_arg of the
struct
AaronBallman wrote:
> What are the current rules on cherry picks for old bugs? AFAICT this patch
> wasn't fixing a bug introduced in the 17.x-18.x development region.
https://releases.llvm.org/17.0.1/docs/HowToReleaseLLVM.html#release-patch-rules
has the documented rules.
https://github.com/l
RKSimon wrote:
What are the current rules on cherry picks for old bugs? AFAICT this patch
wasn't fixing a bug introduced in the 17.x-18.x development region.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86698
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-bra
phoebewang wrote:
> @phoebewang What do you think about backporting this?
I think the patch doesn't fix all problem in #86371, suggest to reevaluate it.
@efriedma-quic may take another look.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86698
___
llvm-br
tstellar wrote:
@phoebewang What do you think about backporting this?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86698
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-co
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86698
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
AtariDreams wrote:
> Is there some reason you think we should take this specific patch, out of all
> the x86 ABI fixes going in recently? It isn't a regression, as far as I know.
It's a miscompile
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86698
___
efriedma-quic wrote:
Is there some reason you think we should take this specific patch, out of all
the x86 ABI fixes going in recently? It isn't a regression, as far as I know.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86698
___
llvm-branch-commits m
https://github.com/AtariDreams updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86698
>From 707fa564f1b047442d731290e6a634b8df308692 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Longsheng Mou
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 09:19:42 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] [X86_64] fix SSE type error in vaarg. (#86377)
tweak the pos
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-x86
Author: AtariDreams (AtariDreams)
Changes
tweak the position of the ++neededSSE when Lo is NoClass and Hi is SSE. Fix
#86371.
(cherry picked from commit 9c8dd5e6f6bd93deb95de9642632223f54a18a11)
---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-
https://github.com/AtariDreams created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86698
tweak the position of the ++neededSSE when Lo is NoClass and Hi is SSE. Fix
#86371.
(cherry picked from commit 9c8dd5e6f6bd93deb95de9642632223f54a18a11)
>From 1e355856dda8f67f5431ac3d9000ce8ceef25743 Mon Se
13 matches
Mail list logo
