Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v11

On 2018-03-05 14:01:05 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-03-05 13:36:04 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-03-05 16:19:52 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Testing 0732ee73cf3ffd18d0f651376d69d4798d351ccc on Debian testing ...
> > >
> > > The build works out of the box with whatever the default system packages
> > > are.
> > >
> > > Regression tests crash many times. One backtrace looks like this:
> > >
> > > #0 __GI_raise (sig=sig(at)entry=6) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:51
> > > #1 0x00007fd5b1730231 in __GI_abort () at abort.c:79
> > > #2 0x000055c10a1555e3 in ExceptionalCondition
> > > (conditionName=conditionName(at)entry=0x7fd5a245c2d8
> > > "!(LLVMGetIntrinsicID(fn))",
> > > errorType=errorType(at)entry=0x7fd5a245bb1d "FailedAssertion",
> > > fileName=fileName(at)entry=0x7fd5a245c294 "llvmjit_expr.c",
> > > lineNumber=lineNumber(at)entry=193) at assert.c:54
> > > #3 0x00007fd5a245510f in get_LifetimeEnd (mod=mod(at)entry=0x55c10b1db670)
> > > at llvmjit_expr.c:193
> > > #4 0x00007fd5a24553c8 in get_LifetimeEnd (mod=0x55c10b1db670) at
> > > llvmjit_expr.c:233
> > > #5 BuildFunctionCall (context=context(at)entry=0x55c10b0ca340,
> > > builder=builder(at)entry=0x55c10b225160,
> > > mod=mod(at)entry=0x55c10b1db670, fcinfo=0x55c10b1a08b0,
> > > v_fcinfo_isnull=v_fcinfo_isnull(at)entry=0x7ffc701f5c60)
> > > at llvmjit_expr.c:244
> >
> > Hm, that should be trivial to fix. Which version of llvm are you
> > building against? There appear to be a lot of them in testing:
> > https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=llvm+dev&searchon=names&suite=testing&section=all
>
> On Debian unstable, I built against a wide variety of branches:
>
> for v in 3.9 4.0 5.0 6.0;do rm -f ../config.cache;CLANG="ccache clang-$v" LLVM_CONFIG=/usr/lib/llvm-$v/bin/llvm-config ../config.sh --with-llvm && make -j16 -s install && make -s check;done
>
> All of those pass. I'll create a testing chroot.

I did, and reproduced. Turned out I just missed the error in the above
test.

The bug was caused by one ifdef in get_LifetimeEnd() being wrong
(function is is overloaded starting in 5 rather than 4). The comment
above it even had it right...

Greetings,

Andres Freund