search for: abis

Well, I've compiled and installed Kernel 2.4.9-37 uniprocessor. I've made ocfs setup using version 1.0.9-9 uniprocessor. I've generated ocfs.conf using ocfstool. When I start ocfs using /etc/init.d/ocfs start, I receive the following errors: [root@RAC1 root]# /etc/init.d/ocfs start Loading OCFS: /sbin/insmod ocfs node_name=RAC1.localdomain ip_address=192.168.61 2 ip_port=7000

...ilt with a different ABI (that seems to be antithetical to the concept of "ABI" Though) - then it should be a subtarget feature. > > ABI is generally something that has to be agreed upon across object files - so it wouldn't make sense to link two object files with two different ABIs. What's going on here that makes that valid in this case? > > > Are you talking about that "[mips] Pass ABI name via -target-abi instead of target-features"? > > I'm not talking about that patch in particular (I have no specific knowledge of mips or its implement...

Hi all, I'm trying to understand which ABIs are supported in the PowerPC backend and I'm getting a bit confused. Here's what I've gathered so far alongside with some questions. - In PPCSubtarget.h there's DarwinABI, SVR4ABI and ELFv2ABI. - The CodeGenerator documentation claims that the AIX PowerPC ABI is followed (with some...

...;Ulrich.Weigand at de.ibm.com> > To: "David Wiberg" <dwiberg at gmail.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:29:22 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [PowerPC] ABI questions > > Hi David, > > > I'm trying to understand which ABIs are supported in the PowerPC > > backend and I'm getting a bit confused. Here's what I've gathered > > so > > far alongside with some questions. > > Sorry for the confusion, this all should probably be cleaned up a > bit. > In general, LLVM today supports...

...ferent ABI (that seems to be antithetical to the > concept of "ABI" Though) - then it should be a subtarget feature. > > ABI is generally something that has to be agreed upon across object files > - so it wouldn't make sense to link two object files with two different > ABIs. What's going on here that makes that valid in this case? > > Are you talking about that "[mips] Pass ABI name via -target-abi instead of target-features"? I don't know WHY -target-abi is passing via different option, not via -mattr (subtarget feature) maybe usually subtarg...

...a different ABI (that seems to be antithetical to the concept of "ABI" Though) - then it should be a subtarget feature. >> >> ABI is generally something that has to be agreed upon across object files - so it wouldn't make sense to link two object files with two different ABIs. What's going on here that makes that valid in this case? >> >> >> Are you talking about that "[mips] Pass ABI name via -target-abi instead of target-features"? >> >> I'm not talking about that patch in particular (I have no specific knowledge of m...

..."ABI" Though) - then it should be a subtarget feature. >>>>> >>>>> ABI is generally something that has to be agreed upon across object >>>>> files - so it wouldn't make sense to link two object files with two >>>>> different ABIs. What's going on here that makes that valid in this case? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Are you talking about that "[mips] Pass ABI name via -target-abi >>>> instead of target-features"? >>>> >>> >>> I'm not ta...

Hi all. There are two steps in LTO codegen so the problem is how to pass ABI info into LTO code generator. The easier way is pass -target-abi via option to LTO codegen, but there is linking issue when linking two bitcodes generated by different -mabi option. (see https://reviews.llvm.org/D71387#1792169) Usually the ABI info for a file is derived from target triple, mcpu or -mabi, but in RISC-V,

Right. I think that's what we ended up doing rather than a more general attribute on the module itself. *shrugs* Probably ok? I'd probably prefer not to have to have target code to do the evaluation if possible, but everything is weird and an edge case - mips abis more than some :) -eric On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 8:58 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, I should say - the module flags metadata also has support for "error > if you try to merge two modules with different values for this flag". > > On Wed, Jan 8, 20...

...s). As an aside, adding the ABI to the triple is not particularly easy, as, for instance, there’s already half an ABI choice in the ‘riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu` “triple”. The gnu/musl ABI choice is orthogonal to the RISC-V calling convention choice around the use of software/hardware floating point ABIs, and saying you have to specify both in the triple seems like it will only confuse users. tldr: Module metadata seems like the right approach, feedback on which of the two of Zakk’s patches (from the original email) forms the better approach to get this information into the LTO backend setup would...

Hello Ulrich, Thank you for a good explanation of the different variants. 2014-07-30 21:29 GMT+02:00 Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand at de.ibm.com>: > Hi David, > >> I'm trying to understand which ABIs are supported in the PowerPC >> backend and I'm getting a bit confused. Here's what I've gathered so >> far alongside with some questions. > > Sorry for the confusion, this all should probably be cleaned up a bit. > In general, LLVM today supports the following ABIs...

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 22 November 2015 at 14:32, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote: > > AFAICT it's an OpenMP link error (that I got when running > "test-release.sh" > > with -openmp). > > Right. In that case, don't worry too much. > > The default release

...the triple is not particularly easy, as, >> for instance, there’s already half an ABI choice in the >> ‘riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu` “triple”. The gnu/musl ABI choice is orthogonal >> to the RISC-V calling convention choice around the use of software/hardware >> floating point ABIs, and saying you have to specify both in the triple >> seems like it will only confuse users. >> >> tldr: Module metadata seems like the right approach, feedback on which of >> the two of Zakk’s patches (from the original email) forms the better >> approach to get this...

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 22 November 2015 at 03:59, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote: > > Should I expect the "-openmp" to work for this RC? > > Only if it worked before on the target you're building to in 3.7.0. > Ok, I'll check if I can get it to work on 3.7.0. > >

...ents 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...

...asy, as, >>>> for instance, there’s already half an ABI choice in the >>>> ‘riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu` “triple”. The gnu/musl ABI choice is orthogonal >>>> to the RISC-V calling convention choice around the use of software/hardware >>>> floating point ABIs, and saying you have to specify both in the triple >>>> seems like it will only confuse users. >>>> >>>> tldr: Module metadata seems like the right approach, feedback on which >>>> of the two of Zakk’s patches (from the original email) forms the bette...

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru>wrote: > Hi Eric, > > > From my perspective Win32 is the windows ABI and mingw and cygwin are > their own ABIs > No. They are using Windows Platform ABI for almost everything (e.g. > calling API, C runtime, etc.). At least mingw does. The differences > are exactly in unspecified area (e.g. passing / returning structs by > value). > > The only difference is C++, where mingw / cygwin follows...

...lvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > To follow up on this issue: > > Our plan is still to encode `target-abi` into the module flags for RISC-V > LLVM IR modules. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the function > lowering in Clang is slightly different for the ABIs which support hardware > floating point. Therefore adding the `target-abi` metadata at the very > least can help catch places where modules with incompatible ABIs are merged. > > With this in mind, our plan is the following: > > 1. We have two patches, both prepared by Zakk, one t...

...e: >> >>> To follow up on this issue: >>> >>> Our plan is still to encode `target-abi` into the module flags for >>> RISC-V LLVM IR modules. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the >>> function lowering in Clang is slightly different for the ABIs which support >>> hardware floating point. Therefore adding the `target-abi` metadata at the >>> very least can help catch places where modules with incompatible ABIs are >>> merged. >>> >>> With this in mind, our plan is the following: >>> >...

...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 th...