llvm dev - Dec 2016 - LLD status update and performance chart

Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> ARM support is coming a long way, but we're still not able to link
Clang
> yet, and there are some issues on the test-suite. We'll be continuing
to
> make progress throughout next year and hopefully have a similar buildbot on
> ARM.
BTW, can you link it if you enable only the ARM target? Last time I
tried on TK1 the only remaining issue was the range extension thunks and
with only one target we got lucky and didn't need them.

> Rafael,
>
> Great news about FreeBSD! Once LLD has become their default linker in
> x86_64, I'd like to start the same process on AArch64.
Awesome. I actually expect a much smaller tail on AArch64 than on X86_64.

Cheers,
Rafael

On 12 December 2016 at 16:16, Rafael Avila de Espindola
<rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW, can you link it if you enable only the ARM target? Last time I
> tried on TK1 the only remaining issue was the range extension thunks and
> with only one target we got lucky and didn't need them.
That's a good point! Peter, have you tried that?

Indeed, thunks were the main remaining issue for us on ARM.

cheers,
--renato

I can get the llvm* tools to link on ARM with shared libraries and
only ARM, AArch64 and x86 as targets. With libclang.so I wasn't quite
so lucky but I did have an extra couple of Targets over just ARM.

There are a few small niggles on ARM that I'm hoping to post fixes for
this week:
- Need to support thunks to undefined symbols (Python C extension
shared objects calling back to the Python interpreter).
- eglibc (default in Ubuntu 14.04) requires a .ARM.attributes section
for dlopen to work (it checks the attributes section for hard/soft
float).

After these it will be a good time to have a go at range extension thunks.


On 12 December 2016 at 16:22, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 12 December 2016 at 16:16, Rafael Avila de Espindola
> <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
>> BTW, can you link it if you enable only the ARM target? Last time I
>> tried on TK1 the only remaining issue was the range extension thunks
and
>> with only one target we got lucky and didn't need them.
>
> That's a good point! Peter, have you tried that?
>
> Indeed, thunks were the main remaining issue for us on ARM.
>
> cheers,
> --renato