Stream: t-compiler/wg-prioritization

Topic: I-prioritize #71504 rust-analyser segfault with lto=thin


triagebot (Apr 24 2020 at 10:29, on Zulip):

@WG-prioritization issue #71504 has been requested for prioritization.

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 24 2020 at 10:36, on Zulip):

Seems scary... Should we ping the LLVM ICE-breaker group, even if this isn’t an ICE?

DPC (Apr 24 2020 at 11:08, on Zulip):

I don't mind pinging both groups

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 24 2020 at 14:42, on Zulip):

pinging both groups is fine

Wesley Wiser (Apr 24 2020 at 14:58, on Zulip):

Should we wait to hear back from the ICE-breaker groups before prioritizing?

Wesley Wiser (Apr 24 2020 at 14:58, on Zulip):

Seems at least P-high if not P-critical at this time.

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 24 2020 at 14:58, on Zulip):

Agreed

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 24 2020 at 14:59, on Zulip):

Oh we got some more information from @Speedy37

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 24 2020 at 15:03, on Zulip):

I think we can still ping both groups and tag P-critical for the first investigation?

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 24 2020 at 15:19, on Zulip):

Does that seem good @Wesley Wiser?

Wesley Wiser (Apr 24 2020 at 15:20, on Zulip):

Seems great to me :)

DPC (Apr 24 2020 at 15:22, on Zulip):

does it beg a P-critical? i'm more inclined towards P-high

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 24 2020 at 15:23, on Zulip):

I think we all agree on pinging both groups, so I'll do that first

DPC (Apr 24 2020 at 15:25, on Zulip):

i was about to do it an hour back and then forgot the command :D

DPC (Apr 24 2020 at 15:26, on Zulip):

should probably set it as an github auto-reply

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 24 2020 at 15:29, on Zulip):

There are aliases now

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 24 2020 at 15:29, on Zulip):

It's @rustbot ping <llvm/cleanup>

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 24 2020 at 17:27, on Zulip):

I was thinking also about P-critical

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 24 2020 at 17:27, on Zulip):

we can always tag and fix later

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 24 2020 at 17:27, on Zulip):

but according to the current state of things I'd say P-critical

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 24 2020 at 17:28, on Zulip):

this is windows and thin-lto only right?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 24 2020 at 17:28, on Zulip):

still I think it's critical :)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 24 2020 at 17:28, on Zulip):

and it's also happening in real code

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 27 2020 at 18:53, on Zulip):

we didn't tag this one yet

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 27 2020 at 18:54, on Zulip):

P-critical? P-high?

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 27 2020 at 19:09, on Zulip):

We didn't get any information from the ICE-breakers

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 27 2020 at 19:09, on Zulip):

I think it deserves a spotlight

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 27 2020 at 19:10, on Zulip):

We currently have no P-critical issues open

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 27 2020 at 19:12, on Zulip):

So I believe we can make this a P-critical issue

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 27 2020 at 19:12, on Zulip):

And review that priority later once we have an MCVE etc...

DPC (Apr 27 2020 at 19:14, on Zulip):

yeh i don't think we need to wait for the breakers

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 27 2020 at 19:14, on Zulip):

:+1:, P-critical for now then

triagebot (Apr 27 2020 at 19:16, on Zulip):

Issue #71504's prioritization request has been removed.

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 28 2020 at 13:40, on Zulip):

seeing the latests comments this is not P-critical anymore :slight_smile:

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 28 2020 at 13:41, on Zulip):

and also it may be just closed as @Jonas Schievink mentioned

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 28 2020 at 13:56, on Zulip):

I think we should unprioritize it and wait for Gankra to choose to close or not to

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 28 2020 at 14:02, on Zulip):

let's leave as is for now and wait, to avoid too much back and forth, but let's also remember to not leave this as P-critical for next meeting

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 28 2020 at 14:03, on Zulip):

given that we review this things, it won't anyway but just saying :)

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 28 2020 at 14:56, on Zulip):

Has been added to metabug #71520

Last update: Jun 05 2020 at 22:20UTC