Re: [PATCH] Native spinlock support on RISC-V

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marek Szuba <marecki(at)gentoo(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Native spinlock support on RISC-V
Date: 2021-11-03 04:13:24
Message-ID: B432A543-AA46-406F-A0B0-4A03B0294A88@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On November 2, 2021 3:55:58 PM PDT, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>2. When configured with all options on FreeBSD 13, everything looks
>good so far except LLVM JIT, which fails with various "Cannot select"
>errors. Clang works fine for compiling PostgreSQL itself. Tested
>with LLVM 12 (LLVM has supported RISCV since 9). Example:
>
>+FATAL: fatal llvm error: Cannot select: 0x4f772068: ch = brcond
>0x4f770f70, 0x4f772208, BasicBlock:ch< 0x4f76d600>
>+ 0x4f772208: i64 = setcc 0x4f7723a8, Constant:i64<0>, setlt:ch
>+ 0x4f7723a8: i64,ch = load<(load 4 from `i32* inttoptr (i64
>1260491408 to i32*)`, align 16), sext from i32> 0x4fdee058,
>Constant:i64<1260491408>, undef:i64
>+ 0x4f770a90: i64 = Constant<1260491408>
>+ 0x4f7703a8: i64 = undef
>+ 0x4f7701a0: i64 = Constant<0>
>+In function: evalexpr_0_0

Any chance you could enable jit_dump_bitcode and manually try a failing query? That should dump. bc files in the data directory. That'd might allow debugging this outside the emulated environment.

I don't see where the undef is originating from, but I think it might suggest that something lead to that code being considered unreachable.

Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vignesh C 2021-11-03 04:25:15 Re: Added schema level support for publication.
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2021-11-03 04:08:06 Re: parallel vacuum comments