similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] add x32 psABI support

Hi Folks, Anyone got chance to review the patch adding X32 psABI support? Yours - Michael -----Original Message----- From: llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Liao, Michael Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 11:18 AM To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re:

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:35 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail.com> wrote: >> Here is the link: >> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ia32-abi/nq6cvH_VVV4 > > The document contains this claim (as do many other psABI documents): > > "Bit-fields that are neither

Hi all, Recently, Reid Kleckner found an ABI incompatibility between clang and GCC in the way vector parameters are passed on 32-bit x86. (This is documented in PR21510.) Specifically, GCC uses XMM0-XMM2 to pass the first 3 __m128 parameters, and the rest are passed on the stack. Clang passes an additional parameter by register, using XMM0-XMM3. The same applies to __m256 with YMM0-2 vs. YMM0-3.

X32 support patch for compiler-rt. Applies against current trunk. --- projects/compiler-rt/make/platform/clang_linux.mk~ 2013-08-21 06:27:38.000000000 +0000 +++ projects/compiler-rt/make/platform/clang_linux.mk 2013-08-21 11:16:55.891621025 +0000 @@ -41,7 +41,18 @@ SupportedArches += x86_64 endif else - SupportedArches := x86_64 + # x86-64 arch has two ABIs 64 bit x86-64 and 32 bit

All, We have our first CL ready and waiting, but haven't heard from the community. Are there issues or suggestions we should understand a priori? Cheers, David On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:59 PM, David Sehr <sehr at google.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Background: > We (the Portable Native Client team) would like to continue upstreaming > our LLVM modifications which

Hello, Background: We (the Portable Native Client team) would like to continue upstreaming our LLVM modifications which contain support for Software Fault Isolation (SFI) as required for sandboxing programs to run under Native Client. Since the "total patch size" is quite big, we are splitting the effort to manageable chunks that can be committed, tested and reviewed separately as

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 12:29 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>wrote: > > > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:50 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk > > >wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 15:22 +0100, Steven Newbury wrote: > This patch is still not creating elf32_x86_64 objects. No idea > why. :( It does however, fix elf_x86_64 (-m64) code generation on x32 > hosts which is nice. :) I know why. I had assumed Michael Liao (the original patch author) had submitted all the _LLVM_ x32 support as separate patches, and it was just the

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>wrote: > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:50 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk > >wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:27 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > > > > Hi Steven, > > > > > >

Hi, There's several, to my eyes, somewhat related looking bugs: Bug 36743 - Cannot select: X86ISD::CALL ICE with -mx32 -O2 -fno-plt https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36743 Bug 34268 - JITting of x32 code on x64 fails with crash or instruction selection error. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34268 There's unfortunately been no investigation. I'm asking because I hit

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>wrote: > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:27 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > > Hi Steven, > > > > This looks interesting and raises a number of questions :) > > > > 1) Does applying this patch actually bring working sanitizers to x32 > > platform? > > That is, after you build the

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:50 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>wrote: > > > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:27 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > > > Hi Steven, > > > > > > This looks interesting and raises a number of questions :) > > > > > > 1) Does applying this patch

Hi all, We (Intel) would like to revive this thread on X32 ABI support upstreaming. X32 ABI homepage is here: https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/ Currently x32 support is available in kernel/glibc/gcc/binutils and one can install for example Ubuntu 14 with extra x32 lib packages (apt-get install libc6-dev-x32) to evaluate x32-target code generated by GCC (gcc supports x32 on Ubuntu 14 out of

Hi Steven, This looks interesting and raises a number of questions :) 1) Does applying this patch actually bring working sanitizers to x32 platform? That is, after you build the clang, does "clang -fsanitize=whatever foo.c" compile/link/run with expected results? I doubt that, as there is some platform-specific code in all the sanitizers, and many of them heavily depend on the address

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:27 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > Hi Steven, > > This looks interesting and raises a number of questions :) > > 1) Does applying this patch actually bring working sanitizers to x32 > platform? > That is, after you build the clang, does "clang -fsanitize=whatever foo.c" > compile/link/run with expected results? > I doubt that, as

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>wrote: > On Wed, 2013-08-21 at 23:59 -0700, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk> > wrote: > > > I've been trying > > > to get x32 ABI support working in Clang and compiler-rt, I based off > the > > >

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk> wrote: > If I'm going to submit the Clang patch, how should it be submitted? One > patch with what's required to get x32 host to work, then another > enabling x32 code generation once the required changes to llvm are > merged? Would that be sufficient? Sounds good to me. Dmitri --

Hi Pavel, We (the Native Client team) are also interested in helping you get these reviewed and in, especially the x86 backend stuff. Native Client's x86-64 ABI is similar to x32 so we could probably share a good portion of the code if it's structured the right way. -Derek On 1404316081542, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Pavel

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk> wrote: > I've been trying > to get x32 ABI support working in Clang and compiler-rt, I based off the > previous clang patch, bringing it up to date with the changes in trunk, > and hacked together handling of x32 "ARCH" support for compiler-rt. > (there must be a better way??) If you are

Here is the link: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ia32-abi/nq6cvH_VVV4 -- H.J.