Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

deps: backport 224d376 from V8 upstream #10526

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jBarz
Copy link
Contributor

@jBarz jBarz commented Dec 29, 2016

Orignial commit message:
Abort in delete operators that shouldn't be called.

Section 3.2 of the C++ standard states that destructor
definitions implicitly "use" operator delete functions.
Therefore, these operator delete functions must be
defined even if they are never called by user code
explicitly.
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/
cwg_defects.html#261

gcc allows them to remain as empty definitions. However,
not all compilers allow this. (e.g. xlc on zOS). This pull
request creates definitions which if ever called, result
in an abort.

R=danno@chromium.org,jochen@chromium.org
BUG=
LOG=N

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2588433002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#41981}

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX)
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

v8

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the v8 engine Issues and PRs related to the V8 dependency. label Dec 29, 2016
@jBarz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jBarz commented Dec 29, 2016

cc @gibfahn

@sam-github
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

Did you run into this as a problem on a non-gcc system?

@jBarz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jBarz commented Dec 29, 2016

I ran into this on z/OS which uses the xlc compiler.

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member

gibfahn commented Dec 30, 2016

I think the V8 patch level needs to be updated. The process should be documented in the updating v8 guide.

Copy link
Member

@mhdawson mhdawson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Jan 6, 2017

Weird failure in the arm CI job. Appears unrelated but just in case: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/5730/

@jBarz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jBarz commented Jan 6, 2017

It is weird because when I click on the link for details, the test appears to have passed. :-)
Unless I am missing something

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Jan 6, 2017

The results showing now are for the new run I just kicked off... which does appear to have passed

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member

gibfahn commented Jan 6, 2017

The Github check sometimes wrongly reports that test/arm failed (nodejs/build#572), it's nothing to worry about.

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member

gibfahn commented Jan 6, 2017

@jBarz do the changes in include/v8.h from v8/v8@224d37 not need to be included?

@jBarz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jBarz commented Jan 7, 2017

@gib: v8.h in the master branch in chromium underwent some changes that needed to be reversed.
But node has not absorbed those changes yet so this PR does not need them.

Copy link
Member

@gibfahn gibfahn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In that case LGTM (in that it matches the upstream commit). Should be reviewed by @nodejs/v8 and/or @MylesBorins though.

Copy link
Contributor

@ofrobots ofrobots left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM w/ nit: the commit abstract should say 'backport' as this is not a clean cherry-pick.

@ofrobots
Copy link
Contributor

Another nit: prefer 7-character commit ids.

Orignial commit message:
  Abort in delete operators that shouldn't be called.

  Section 3.2 of the C++ standard states that destructor
  definitions implicitly "use" operator delete functions.
  Therefore, these operator delete functions must be
  defined even if they are never called by user code
  explicitly.
  http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/
  cwg_defects.html#261

  gcc allows them to remain as empty definitions. However,
  not all compilers allow this. (e.g. xlc on zOS). This pull
  request creates definitions which if ever called, result
  in an abort.

  R=danno@chromium.org,jochen@chromium.org
  BUG=
  LOG=N

  Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2588433002
  Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{nodejs#41981}
@jBarz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jBarz commented Jan 18, 2017

addressed nits

@jBarz jBarz changed the title deps: cherry-pick 224d37 from V8 upstream deps: cherry-pick 224d376 from V8 upstream Jan 18, 2017
@jBarz jBarz changed the title deps: cherry-pick 224d376 from V8 upstream deps: backport 224d376 from V8 upstream Jan 18, 2017
@ofrobots
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks. LGTM.

Copy link
Member

@bnoordhuis bnoordhuis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. @jBarz Did you request backports to 5.5 and 5.6?

@jBarz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jBarz commented Jan 19, 2017

oh no :-(
I will do that

@jBarz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jBarz commented Jan 19, 2017

I have requested backports to 5.5, 5.6.

@targos
Copy link
Member

targos commented Jan 28, 2017

Does it need to be applied to v7, v6 or v4?
What is the status on the backport request?

@jBarz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jBarz commented Jan 28, 2017

This fix is required on v6.x and above.
The backport to node v6.x was successfull (#10546)
Backport to v8 5.5 was rejected (too late). Doesn't matter I think because of #10546
Backport to v8 5.6 was accepted.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member

jasnell commented Mar 24, 2017

Ping. any updates on this one?

@jasnell jasnell added the stalled Issues and PRs that are stalled. label Mar 24, 2017
@gibfahn
Copy link
Member

gibfahn commented Mar 25, 2017

@jBarz if you could rebase and confirm this is still needed, we should get it landed, especially if it's already gone into v6.x

@jBarz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jBarz commented Mar 25, 2017

This backport is no longer needed because it is already backported via #11752

@jBarz jBarz closed this Mar 25, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
stalled Issues and PRs that are stalled. v8 engine Issues and PRs related to the V8 dependency.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants