Skip to content

Store a pointer to llvm::Archive::Child rather than by value #36896

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

Closed

Conversation

dylanmckay
Copy link
Contributor

Recent changes to LLVM cause the constructor to Archive::Child to have
the same signature, but require a parent archive (otherwise a segfault
is hit).

This is backwards compatible with the current LLVM.

This will need to be done before the next LLVM upgrade.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

r? @brson

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

Recent changes to LLVM cause the constructor to Archive::Child to have
the same signature, but require a parent archive (otherwise a segfault
is hit).

This is backwards compatible with the current LLVM. This will need to be
done before the next LLVM upgrade.
@dylanmckay dylanmckay force-pushed the pointerize-archive-child branch from 15e1cfe to bba47b3 Compare October 1, 2016 15:56
@@ -191,7 +185,7 @@ LLVMRustArchiveMemberNew(char *Filename, char *Name,
Member->filename = Filename;
Member->name = Name;
if (child)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This conditional could probably be removed.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Looks like this may segfault on LLVM 3.7 as well? (travis)

@dylanmckay
Copy link
Contributor Author

This has been fixed in upstream LLVM commit r283387.

@dylanmckay dylanmckay closed this Oct 6, 2016
@shepmaster shepmaster deleted the pointerize-archive-child branch February 14, 2017 03:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants