llvm dev - Jun 2014 - [LLVMdev] Is there any tool can generate MIPS ELF file?

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Daniel Sanders
<Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote:
>> There are a lot of MIPS ABIs.
>
> Yes, and we've discovered that there seem to be incompatible extensions
to some of these ABI's too.
:)
>
>> I'm pretty sure Imagination Technologies working up a new abi right
now.
>
> Not exactly. We're not working on any completely new ABI's but we
are fixing a compatibility flaw between the O32 ABI and a (currently)
unsupported extension that allows the efficient use of FR=1 mode (FPU with
64-bit registers). This is going to be important since MIPS32r6/MIPS64r6 will
not have direct support for FR=0 mode (FPU with 32-bit registers). At the
moment, this extension is available in all the tools and is enabled with -mfp64.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to inter-link O32 and O32+fp64 code since they
require the FPU to be in different modes. To fix the compatibility flaw, we are
adding an O32 extension called fpxx (enabled with -mfpxx) which operates
correctly in both FPU modes and is essentially O32 with some minor restrictions.
O32+fpxx is ABI-compatible with O32 and O32+fp64 and can inter-link with either
but not both at the same time (because they conflict with eachother). The
intention is that as code is re-compiled, O32+fpxx will replace O32 and we will
end up the mode requirements being either 'FR=1' or "don't
care".
>
> In case you're curious, the fpxx restrictions are:
> * Use of mtc1, mfc1, lwc1, and swc1 on the upper 32-bits of a double
precision value is not permitted.
> * Some callee-saved registers are also treated as caller-saved.
>
Well, this is definitely ABI breaking, so effectively a new ABI is what I meant.

Curious why an extension to o32 for this and not, for example, just using n32?

-eric
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu]
>> On Behalf Of Eric Christopher
>> Sent: 18 June 2014 18:48
>> To: Matheus Almeida
>> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there any tool can generate MIPS ELF file?
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Matheus Almeida
>> <Matheus.Almeida at imgtec.com> wrote:
>> >> Why Imagination Technologies do not offer the latest MIPS ABI
document
>> download link just like the ISA docs?
>> > It's something we're considering to do and the documents
should be
>> available at some point in the [hopefully] not too distant future.
>> >
>> >> then why GCC disagree with some MIPS ABI, it should be freely
designed
>> by MIPS ABI designer and compiler backend target implementation.
>> > I don't have a very good explanation to this question. The
ABIs were
>> implemented a long time ago and I can only guess at this point but
I'd say that
>> there were some misinterpretations of the spec and given the popularity
of
>> GCC, the implementation became the new standard and it's something
that
>> LLVM needs to cope with.
>> >
>>
>> There are a lot of MIPS ABIs.
>>
>> o32, n32, n64 - These came from the SGI world for IRIX originally, but
were
>> also adopted for linux and used in gcc for both.
>> o64 - Invented at Cygnus for 64-bit processors eabi - Different one
invented
>> at Cygnus meabi - Invented with MIPS and Cygnus (and possibly others)
in
>> the late 90s as a new embedded abi.
>> And there's been at least one or two other ABIs since - I'm
pretty sure
>> Imagination Technologies working up a new abi right now.
>>
>> -eric
>>
>> > Regards,
>> > Matheus
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Nancy [mailto:nancydreaming at gmail.com]
>> > Sent: 17 June 2014 13:56
>> > To: Matheus Almeida
>> > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
>> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there any tool can generate MIPS ELF
file?
>> >
>> > Thank you very much for your information and documents!
>> >
>> > Why Imagination Technologies do not offer the latest MIPS ABI
document
>> download link just like the ISA docs? If they thought no much people
>> interested in that doc, they had to make greate effort on compiler like
>> GCC,LLVM by themself,then why GCC disagree with some MIPS ABI, it
>> should be freely designed by MIPS ABI designer and compiler backend
target
>> implementation. Do I miss something?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best Regards,
>> > Yu Rong Tan
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Matheus Almeida
>> <Matheus.Almeida at imgtec.com> wrote:
>> >> Could you be more specific about what ABIs are you after ? The
reason
>> I'm asking is that there are several ABIs available for Mips and
only a few of
>> them are supported by LLVM (o32, n32 and n64). There are several ABIs
>> defined by GNU with very little documentation that describes them (EABI
is
>> one example).
>> >>
>> >> We are aware that the available documentation and GCC disagree
>> sometimes and given that GCC is the de-facto standard, LLVM tries to
follow
>> GCC's behaviour as close as possible.
>> >>
>> >> As far as I know there isn't any link from Imagination
Technologies'
>> website that I can point you to w.r.t ABIs but there's
documentation out
>> there like:
>> >> https://dmz-portal.mips.com/mw/images/f/fe/MD00305-2B-ABIDESC-
>> SPC-01.03.pdf   // This is probably the best document as it compares
the 3
>> most important ABIs. Note that it's an old document and needs some
>> refactoring given that the implementation in GCC sometimes differs from
the
>> documentation.
>> >> http://math-atlas.sourceforge.net/devel/assembly/mipsabi32.pdf
// O32
>> >> ftp://www.linux-mips.org/pub/linux/mips/doc/ABI/MIPS-N32-ABI-
>> Handbook.
>> >> pdf //n32
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Matheus
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

> Well, this is definitely ABI breaking, so effectively a new ABI is what I
meant.
I had the same initial reaction when it was first explained to me but it
doesn't actually break the ABI compatibility. It's really a seamless
migration. Suppose you have a big source base such as 32-bit Debian. All the
packages are compiled for O32 so any package that uses the FPU requires FR=0
mode. Once O32+fpxx is in the compiler and becomes the default, the packages
will be gradually rebuilt with O32+fpxx as the ABI. O32 and O32+fpxx are ABI
compatible (I'll explain this in the next two paragraphs) so we can mix an
O32+fpxx glibc and an O32 libavcodec as part of ffmpeg (the result being an O32
ffmpeg binary requiring FR=0 mode). Over time, more and more packages are
rebuilt with O32+fpxx (through natural churn) and the source base becomes more
and more FR mode independent. Sooner or later our previous example of glibc,
libavcodec, and ffmpeg is entirely O32+fpxx and no longer requires any
particular FR mode.

Earlier, I mentioned that O32 and O32+fpxx are ABI compatible but didn't
explain it. We'll start with the 'Some callee-saved registers are also
treated as caller-saved' change. In O32, the 32-bit values in $f20 - $f31
are callee saved. In O32+fpxx, the 64-bit values in even registers $f20 to $f30
are callee saved. In FR=0 mode, these definitions are equivalent since 'swc1
$f20, 0($base)' and 'swc1 $f21, 4($base)' modifies memory in the
same way as 'sdc1 $f20, 0($base)'. We don't have to worry about the
extra alignment restriction because the stack is 8-byte aligned. However, in
O32+fpxx the odd registers $f21 to $f31 are _also_ caller saved in addition to
being callee saved. In FR=0 mode, this means that these values are preserved by
both the caller and the callee, but in FR=1 mode they are only preserved by the
caller because in FR=1 mode 'sdc1 $f20, 0($base)' does not store any
part of $f21. Hopefully that made sense to you, it's probably the hardest
part of O32+fpxx to follow.

The one remaining difference between FR=0 and FR=1 is that reads/writes to/from
the upper 32-bits of a double precision value can be done via odd registers in
FR=0 mode, but must be done via dedicated instructions in FR=1 mode. For
example, in FR=0 mode 'mtc1 $zero, $f21' zeros the upper 32-bits of the
double-precision value in $f20. In FR=1, we would use 'mthc1 $zero,
$f20'. To resolve this, O32+fpxx simply bans the exploitation of the fact
that the odd registers are the upper 32-bits of the even registers. Both FR=0
and FR=1 must use 'mthc1 $zero, $f20'. The catch is that MIPS-II and
MIPS32r1 don't have 'mthc1' and don't have the alternative
available to the 64-bit ISA's (dmtc1) either. These two must use a sdc1/ldc1
sequence instead. It's unpleasant but the benefit of fixing the bigger issue
and migrating to a world where code can run on both FR=0 and FR=1 without
modification is seen to outweigh the cost to performance. The bigger catch is
that MIPS-I doesn't have sdc1/ldc1 either. In this case, we've decided
to leave MIPS-I behind, it can continue to use O32 as it currently does.

Hopefully at this point I've convinced you that this first step is ABI
compatible and that the 32-bit Debian example I started with will gradually
become a distribution that can run in both FR=0 and FR=1 rather than one that
requires FR=0. The next step is to allow binaries to require FR=1 mode. At this
point, this can actually happen without any further ABI modification since
O32+fpxx is also compatible with the O32+fp64 I mentioned in my previous email.
This is because O32+fp64 was careful to define the even registers $f20 to $f30
to be callee saved and the odd registers $f21 to $f31 to be caller saved. The
main advantage to O32+fp64 is that it is permitted to use the odd FPU registers
for storage and arithmetic whereas O32+fpxx is not in case it runs in FR=0 mode
where these registers are not usable.

So in summary, each step is ABI compatible with the previous step. The linker
will ensure that the end-user doesn't try to do the second step before the
first step is finished since it will refuse to link a binary that contains both
O32 and O32+fp64. It will produce an O32 binary given a combination of O32+fpxx,
and similarly a O32+fp64 binary given a combination O32+fpxx and O32+fp64.
> Curious why an extension to o32 for this and not, for example, just using
n32?
N32 is an ABI that requires 64-bit general purpose registers so it's not
supportable on a 32-bit ISA. More importantly, it would be difficult (if not
impossible) to arrange that downstream source bases transition all their code to
a new ABI at once. The seamless migration from O32 to O32+fpxx allows source
bases to transition piece by piece and therefore allows us to drive the
migration using the compiler and the natural tendency for living code to be
recompiled at some point. Without this, it's doubtful that downstream
sources would make the transition at all as evidenced by previous unsuccessful
attempts at updating the ABI. Another important reason is some projects (e.g.
Android) need to be able to execute the previously compiled apps from earlier
toolchains without modification.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Christopher [mailto:echristo at gmail.com]
> Sent: 23 June 2014 19:44
> To: Daniel Sanders
> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there any tool can generate MIPS ELF file?
> 
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Daniel Sanders
> <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote:
> >> There are a lot of MIPS ABIs.
> >
> > Yes, and we've discovered that there seem to be incompatible
extensions
> to some of these ABI's too.
> 
> :)
> 
> >
> >> I'm pretty sure Imagination Technologies working up a new abi
right now.
> >
> > Not exactly. We're not working on any completely new ABI's but
we are
> fixing a compatibility flaw between the O32 ABI and a (currently)
> unsupported extension that allows the efficient use of FR=1 mode (FPU
> with 64-bit registers). This is going to be important since
MIPS32r6/MIPS64r6
> will not have direct support for FR=0 mode (FPU with 32-bit registers). At
> the moment, this extension is available in all the tools and is enabled
with -
> mfp64. Unfortunately, it is not possible to inter-link O32 and O32+fp64
code
> since they require the FPU to be in different modes. To fix the
compatibility
> flaw, we are adding an O32 extension called fpxx (enabled with -mfpxx)
> which operates correctly in both FPU modes and is essentially O32 with
> some minor restrictions. O32+fpxx is ABI-compatible with O32 and O32+fp64
> and can inter-link with either but not both at the same time (because they
> conflict with eachother). The intention is that as code is re-compiled,
> O32+fpxx will replace O32 and we will end up the mode requirements being
> either 'FR=1' or "don't care".
> >
> > In case you're curious, the fpxx restrictions are:
> > * Use of mtc1, mfc1, lwc1, and swc1 on the upper 32-bits of a double
> precision value is not permitted.
> > * Some callee-saved registers are also treated as caller-saved.
> >
> 
> Well, this is definitely ABI breaking, so effectively a new ABI is what I
> meant.
> 
> Curious why an extension to o32 for this and not, for example, just using
> n32?
> 
> -eric
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu
> >> [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> >> On Behalf Of Eric Christopher
> >> Sent: 18 June 2014 18:48
> >> To: Matheus Almeida
> >> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
> >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there any tool can generate MIPS ELF
file?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Matheus Almeida
> >> <Matheus.Almeida at imgtec.com> wrote:
> >> >> Why Imagination Technologies do not offer the latest MIPS
ABI
> >> >> document
> >> download link just like the ISA docs?
> >> > It's something we're considering to do and the
documents should be
> >> available at some point in the [hopefully] not too distant future.
> >> >
> >> >> then why GCC disagree with some MIPS ABI, it should be
freely
> >> >> designed
> >> by MIPS ABI designer and compiler backend target implementation.
> >> > I don't have a very good explanation to this question.
The ABIs
> >> > were
> >> implemented a long time ago and I can only guess at this point but
> >> I'd say that there were some misinterpretations of the spec
and given
> >> the popularity of GCC, the implementation became the new standard
and
> >> it's something that LLVM needs to cope with.
> >> >
> >>
> >> There are a lot of MIPS ABIs.
> >>
> >> o32, n32, n64 - These came from the SGI world for IRIX originally,
> >> but were also adopted for linux and used in gcc for both.
> >> o64 - Invented at Cygnus for 64-bit processors eabi - Different
one
> >> invented at Cygnus meabi - Invented with MIPS and Cygnus (and
> >> possibly others) in the late 90s as a new embedded abi.
> >> And there's been at least one or two other ABIs since -
I'm pretty
> >> sure Imagination Technologies working up a new abi right now.
> >>
> >> -eric
> >>
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Matheus
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Nancy [mailto:nancydreaming at gmail.com]
> >> > Sent: 17 June 2014 13:56
> >> > To: Matheus Almeida
> >> > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
> >> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there any tool can generate MIPS
ELF file?
> >> >
> >> > Thank you very much for your information and documents!
> >> >
> >> > Why Imagination Technologies do not offer the latest MIPS ABI
> >> > document
> >> download link just like the ISA docs? If they thought no much
people
> >> interested in that doc, they had to make greate effort on compiler
> >> like GCC,LLVM by themself,then why GCC disagree with some MIPS
ABI,
> >> it should be freely designed by MIPS ABI designer and compiler
> >> backend target implementation. Do I miss something?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Best Regards,
> >> > Yu Rong Tan
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Matheus Almeida
> >> <Matheus.Almeida at imgtec.com> wrote:
> >> >> Could you be more specific about what ABIs are you after
? The
> >> >> reason
> >> I'm asking is that there are several ABIs available for Mips
and only
> >> a few of them are supported by LLVM (o32, n32 and n64). There are
> >> several ABIs defined by GNU with very little documentation that
> >> describes them (EABI is one example).
> >> >>
> >> >> We are aware that the available documentation and GCC
disagree
> >> sometimes and given that GCC is the de-facto standard, LLVM tries
to
> >> follow GCC's behaviour as close as possible.
> >> >>
> >> >> As far as I know there isn't any link from
Imagination Technologies'
> >> website that I can point you to w.r.t ABIs but there's
documentation
> >> out there like:
> >> >>
https://dmz-portal.mips.com/mw/images/f/fe/MD00305-2B-ABIDESC-
> >> SPC-01.03.pdf   // This is probably the best document as it
compares the 3
> >> most important ABIs. Note that it's an old document and needs
some
> >> refactoring given that the implementation in GCC sometimes differs
> >> from the documentation.
> >> >>
http://math-atlas.sourceforge.net/devel/assembly/mipsabi32.pdf //
> >> >> O32
> >> >>
ftp://www.linux-mips.org/pub/linux/mips/doc/ABI/MIPS-N32-ABI-
> >> Handbook.
> >> >> pdf //n32
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Matheus
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

> So in summary, each step is ABI compatible with the previous step. The
linker will ensure that the end-user doesn't try to do the second step
before the first step is finished since it will refuse to link a binary that
contains both O32 and O32+fp64. It will produce an O32 binary given a
combination of O32+fpxx, and similarly a O32+fp64 binary given a combination
O32+fpxx and O32+fp64.
>
Interesting. I'd seen some of the discussion, but not read it in any detail.
>> Curious why an extension to o32 for this and not, for example, just
using n32?
>
> N32 is an ABI that requires 64-bit general purpose registers so it's
not supportable on a 32-bit ISA. More importantly, it would be difficult (if not
impossible) to arrange that downstream source bases transition all their code to
a new ABI at once. The seamless migration from O32 to O32+fpxx allows source
bases to transition piece by piece and therefore allows us to drive the
migration using the compiler and the natural tendency for living code to be
recompiled at some point. Without this, it's doubtful that downstream
sources would make the transition at all as evidenced by previous unsuccessful
attempts at updating the ABI. Another important reason is some projects (e.g.
Android) need to be able to execute the previously compiled apps from earlier
toolchains without modification.
That's fair. I did know the 64-bit register requirement, but had
assumed that with 64-bit floating point that the integer registers
were also 64-bit since other than a couple of processors that's been a
fairly constant thing for MIPS (r5900 as a weird, and notable
exception). If that's not the case, then sure o32 makes sense.

-eric
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eric Christopher [mailto:echristo at gmail.com]
>> Sent: 23 June 2014 19:44
>> To: Daniel Sanders
>> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there any tool can generate MIPS ELF file?
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Daniel Sanders
>> <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote:
>> >> There are a lot of MIPS ABIs.
>> >
>> > Yes, and we've discovered that there seem to be incompatible
extensions
>> to some of these ABI's too.
>>
>> :)
>>
>> >
>> >> I'm pretty sure Imagination Technologies working up a new
abi right now.
>> >
>> > Not exactly. We're not working on any completely new ABI's
but we are
>> fixing a compatibility flaw between the O32 ABI and a (currently)
>> unsupported extension that allows the efficient use of FR=1 mode (FPU
>> with 64-bit registers). This is going to be important since
MIPS32r6/MIPS64r6
>> will not have direct support for FR=0 mode (FPU with 32-bit registers).
At
>> the moment, this extension is available in all the tools and is enabled
with -
>> mfp64. Unfortunately, it is not possible to inter-link O32 and O32+fp64
code
>> since they require the FPU to be in different modes. To fix the
compatibility
>> flaw, we are adding an O32 extension called fpxx (enabled with -mfpxx)
>> which operates correctly in both FPU modes and is essentially O32 with
>> some minor restrictions. O32+fpxx is ABI-compatible with O32 and
O32+fp64
>> and can inter-link with either but not both at the same time (because
they
>> conflict with eachother). The intention is that as code is re-compiled,
>> O32+fpxx will replace O32 and we will end up the mode requirements
being
>> either 'FR=1' or "don't care".
>> >
>> > In case you're curious, the fpxx restrictions are:
>> > * Use of mtc1, mfc1, lwc1, and swc1 on the upper 32-bits of a
double
>> precision value is not permitted.
>> > * Some callee-saved registers are also treated as caller-saved.
>> >
>>
>> Well, this is definitely ABI breaking, so effectively a new ABI is what
I
>> meant.
>>
>> Curious why an extension to o32 for this and not, for example, just
using
>> n32?
>>
>> -eric
>>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu
>> >> [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
>> >> On Behalf Of Eric Christopher
>> >> Sent: 18 June 2014 18:48
>> >> To: Matheus Almeida
>> >> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
>> >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there any tool can generate MIPS ELF
file?
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Matheus Almeida
>> >> <Matheus.Almeida at imgtec.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Why Imagination Technologies do not offer the latest
MIPS ABI
>> >> >> document
>> >> download link just like the ISA docs?
>> >> > It's something we're considering to do and the
documents should be
>> >> available at some point in the [hopefully] not too distant
future.
>> >> >
>> >> >> then why GCC disagree with some MIPS ABI, it should
be freely
>> >> >> designed
>> >> by MIPS ABI designer and compiler backend target
implementation.
>> >> > I don't have a very good explanation to this
question. The ABIs
>> >> > were
>> >> implemented a long time ago and I can only guess at this point
but
>> >> I'd say that there were some misinterpretations of the
spec and given
>> >> the popularity of GCC, the implementation became the new
standard and
>> >> it's something that LLVM needs to cope with.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> There are a lot of MIPS ABIs.
>> >>
>> >> o32, n32, n64 - These came from the SGI world for IRIX
originally,
>> >> but were also adopted for linux and used in gcc for both.
>> >> o64 - Invented at Cygnus for 64-bit processors eabi -
Different one
>> >> invented at Cygnus meabi - Invented with MIPS and Cygnus (and
>> >> possibly others) in the late 90s as a new embedded abi.
>> >> And there's been at least one or two other ABIs since -
I'm pretty
>> >> sure Imagination Technologies working up a new abi right now.
>> >>
>> >> -eric
>> >>
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> > Matheus
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Nancy [mailto:nancydreaming at gmail.com]
>> >> > Sent: 17 June 2014 13:56
>> >> > To: Matheus Almeida
>> >> > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
>> >> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there any tool can generate
MIPS ELF file?
>> >> >
>> >> > Thank you very much for your information and documents!
>> >> >
>> >> > Why Imagination Technologies do not offer the latest MIPS
ABI
>> >> > document
>> >> download link just like the ISA docs? If they thought no much
people
>> >> interested in that doc, they had to make greate effort on
compiler
>> >> like GCC,LLVM by themself,then why GCC disagree with some MIPS
ABI,
>> >> it should be freely designed by MIPS ABI designer and compiler
>> >> backend target implementation. Do I miss something?
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Best Regards,
>> >> > Yu Rong Tan
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Matheus Almeida
>> >> <Matheus.Almeida at imgtec.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Could you be more specific about what ABIs are you
after ? The
>> >> >> reason
>> >> I'm asking is that there are several ABIs available for
Mips and only
>> >> a few of them are supported by LLVM (o32, n32 and n64). There
are
>> >> several ABIs defined by GNU with very little documentation
that
>> >> describes them (EABI is one example).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We are aware that the available documentation and GCC
disagree
>> >> sometimes and given that GCC is the de-facto standard, LLVM
tries to
>> >> follow GCC's behaviour as close as possible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As far as I know there isn't any link from
Imagination Technologies'
>> >> website that I can point you to w.r.t ABIs but there's
documentation
>> >> out there like:
>> >> >>
https://dmz-portal.mips.com/mw/images/f/fe/MD00305-2B-ABIDESC-
>> >> SPC-01.03.pdf   // This is probably the best document as it
compares the 3
>> >> most important ABIs. Note that it's an old document and
needs some
>> >> refactoring given that the implementation in GCC sometimes
differs
>> >> from the documentation.
>> >> >>
http://math-atlas.sourceforge.net/devel/assembly/mipsabi32.pdf //
>> >> >> O32
>> >> >>
ftp://www.linux-mips.org/pub/linux/mips/doc/ABI/MIPS-N32-ABI-
>> >> Handbook.
>> >> >> pdf //n32
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >> Matheus
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev