Switch llvm-backend from PIC+Default (small) to Static+Large. #790
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
bors try |
tryBuild failed
|
|
bors try |
tryBuild succeeded
|
bjfish
approved these changes
Sep 15, 2019
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 15, 2019
790: Switch llvm-backend from PIC+Default (small) to Static+Large. r=nlewycky a=nlewycky # Description Should fix flaky test failure: ``` spectest-a277b7d051ac0dde: /home/nick/llvm-8.0.1.src/lib/ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld/RuntimeDyldELF.cpp:304: void llvm::RuntimeDyldELF::resolveX86_64Relocation(const llvm::SectionEntry&, uint64_t, uint64_t, uint32_t, int64_t, uint64_t): Assertion `isInt<32>(RealOffset)' failed. ``` (with assertions-enabled LLVM). The relocation in question is a `R_X86_64_PC32` with small offset against `.rodata`. The switch from Default (small, JITDefault is a different default that we weren't using which is medium) to Large should fix the bug. Once we're using large code model, I think we can switch from PIC to static as either an optimization or a no-op. # Review - [x] Create a short description of the the change in the CHANGELOG.md file Co-authored-by: Nick Lewycky <[email protected]>
Build failed
|
nlewycky
force-pushed
the
feature/llvm-large-code-model
branch
from
82b0e57 to
53db1d4
Compare
|
On Slack, @losfair suggested that maybe the functions in |
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 16, 2019
790: Switch llvm-backend from PIC+Default (small) to Static+Large. r=nlewycky a=nlewycky # Description Should fix flaky test failure: ``` spectest-a277b7d051ac0dde: /home/nick/llvm-8.0.1.src/lib/ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld/RuntimeDyldELF.cpp:304: void llvm::RuntimeDyldELF::resolveX86_64Relocation(const llvm::SectionEntry&, uint64_t, uint64_t, uint32_t, int64_t, uint64_t): Assertion `isInt<32>(RealOffset)' failed. ``` (with assertions-enabled LLVM). The relocation in question is a `R_X86_64_PC32` with small offset against `.rodata`. The switch from Default (small, JITDefault is a different default that we weren't using which is medium) to Large should fix the bug. Once we're using large code model, I think we can switch from PIC to static as either an optimization or a no-op. # Review - [x] Create a short description of the the change in the CHANGELOG.md file Co-authored-by: Nick Lewycky <[email protected]>
Build succeeded
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Should fix flaky test failure:
(with assertions-enabled LLVM). The relocation in question is a
R_X86_64_PC32with small offset against.rodata.The switch from Default (small, JITDefault is a different default that we weren't using which is medium) to Large should fix the bug. Once we're using large code model, I think we can switch from PIC to static as either an optimization or a no-op.
Review