similar to: oVirtBIOS : Virtualization Firmware

Misters, Happy New Year to you. Let me introduce myself : Guillaume FORTAINE, Engineer in Computer Science. I am currently working on a Cloud Computing Firmware in an Infrastructure-as-a-Service context. The product is an UEFI Hypervisor. It puts virtualization exactly where it belongs: Into the firmware [0] Customers will be able to deploy their appliances and products directly to new

Misters, Happy New Year to you. Let me introduce myself : Guillaume FORTAINE, Engineer in Computer Science. I am currently working on a Cloud Computing Firmware in an Infrastructure-as-a-Service context. The product is an UEFI Hypervisor. It puts virtualization exactly where it belongs: Into the firmware [0] Customers will be able to deploy their appliances and products directly to new

Dear Dennis, > Why should I care? Don't get me wrong the idea sound interesting but I > don't really see why it is so vitally important to put the HV right > into the BIOS. The problem is that you loose support for a lot of > hardware that cannot be booted with coreboot. Our engineering solution comes from a real world problem : faulty firmware (BIOS or UEFI)

[CC?ing coreboot, GRUB, SeaBIOS, Syslinux project and Linux kernel] Am Montag, den 16.03.2015, 11:38 +0100 schrieb Kay Sievers: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog wrote: > > I would like to pass the time it was spent in bootloader to systemd. > > Is there a kernel command line to pass this information on non EFI > > bootloader? Or is there an another

On 11/1/06, Guillaume FORTAINE <guillaume.fortaine at wanadoo.fr> wrote: > >C--'s weakness is it's incompleteness (missing many major features), > >instability/bugginess, poor performance (both time to compile and the > >generated code), lack of high-level optimizations, lack of ABI > >compatibility with the native tools, lack of C++ frontend support, and the

Hi, llvm doesn't support -fno-toplevel-reorder option which affects glibc/eglibc for some targets. http://www.llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6364 >From conversations with gcc and eglibc maintainers, seems option is highly expected and is not going to deprecate. >> 2010/2/23 Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google.com>: >> If option is going to deprecate in gcc in near future as

Package: src:xcp-vncterm Version: 0.1-2 Severity: important Tags: sid jessie User: debian-glibc at lists.debian.org Usertags: ftbfs-glibc-2.17 The package fails to build in a test rebuild on at least amd64 with eglibc-2.17, but succeeds to build with eglibc-2.13. The severity of this report may be raised before the jessie release. The test rebuild was done together with GCC-4.8, so some issues

Hi, >> Are there any reasons why option can't be supported by llvm? > It is hard and has very few users. For this to work you would have to > add ordering information to the LLVM IL. It looks easier to patch > eglibc. I agree, impact of issue is limited. But it prevents out of the box compilation of libraries for some targets. Also, looks like glibc and eglibc maintainers do

> I agree, impact of issue is limited. But it prevents out of the box > compilation of libraries for some targets. > Also, looks like glibc and eglibc maintainers do not welcome patches > for llvm (yet). I would be very surprised if glibc ever does. I don't have any experience with eglibc. > In general, saving order of appearance doesn't seem to be bad thing. > Are

Hi Rui, Not sure if you have seen this problem, but I have been running into this problem when I run the lld tests and the failure occurence is once in 5 times. lld: ../tools/lld/lib/Core/Resolver.cpp:402: void lld::Resolver::deadStripOptimize(): Assertion `symAtom' failed. #0 0x4b05ae llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(_IO_FILE*)

Hi, Are there any existing patches (or instructions) for eglibc(may be glibc/uclibc) to build it correctly with llvm-gcc? Could you please point to them? I'm cross-compiling eglibc for new processor using llvm-gcc. Build passes, but creates mis-optimized crt* files due to lack of -fno-toplevel-reorder support. Seems there are reasons to skip support of this option in llvm.

Hi Quentin, I’ve started running an ABI test suite with global isel on AArch64, and while it hasn’t found any ABI issues it has hit an assertion in clang when using the __fp16 type. Here’s a reproducer: __fp16 pass_f16(__fp16 p) { return p; } $ /work/llvm/build/bin/clang --target=aarch64-arm-none-eabi -march=armv8-a -c test.c -O0 -mllvm -global-isel -mllvm -global-isel-abort=0

Hi, I am looking into using coreboot to speed up the booting of my HTPC, while looking at the payloads they offer I thought that perhaps a syslinux derivative would be nice to have as a payload due to it's flexibility. Is this possible? or something you would be interested in adding support for? Regards, Ryan

Hi, I have cross-compiled just the basic samba 4.0.6 using bitbake recipe for ARM, which succeeded. However the resulting binaries are large in size. I used the exact same configuration options in both the cases. There is at least a 10 fold increase in the smbd compared to native x86. --- Native x86 ---- -rwxr-xr-x 1 pranavd users 92979 May 31 10:57 /usr/sbin/smbd -rwxr-xr-x 1 pranavd users

Hello Tobias, I think that looks reasonable to me, I think it will be down to the llvm-objcopy team whether they want to make .ARM.attributes a special case or not. The best way to find out is to submit a patch, citing the problems with old versions of libc, I'd expect that you'll need to add a test case for the patch to be accepted. To do that it is probably best to look at the existing

Hello, I'm a French student in computing science and I'm interested in your llvm project. We plan to build a new OS design using the Mozart-Oz language ( http://hurd.gnufans.org/bin/view/Hurd/NextHurd ). Could we "easily" implement a Mozart front-end to llvm ? Do you think llvm could be a good alternative to gcc for our project ? http://www.mozart-oz.org

Hello, The Mozart-Oz isn't suitable for our project beacause of disappointing "raw" performances : http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=al http://www.gecode.org/benchmarks.html I have found a very interesting language : http://www.ps.uni-sb.de/alice/ Concurrency, logic verification I found this link : http://www.cminusminus.org with a

Jordan, I have sent the patch via Phabricator: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69188 Let me know if I got it right. -- Tobias On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:12 PM Jordan Rupprecht <rupprecht at google.com> wrote: > > Tobias, > I don't have much experience with ARM, but from your report and Peter's explanation of why LLD does it, I agree we should be consistent with LLD and keep the

Hello, on my journey to debug some things i stumbled over this. Perhaps this could be usefull. just a suggestion for a feature to implement: EHCI Debug Port As more and more pc?s are legacy free.. so no serial port for debuging, this could be interesting, http://www.coreboot.org/EHCI_Debug_Port It is already used in the linux kernel and there is also a linux module that acts as a

> Are there any reasons why option can't be supported by llvm? It is hard and has very few users. For this to work you would have to add ordering information to the LLVM IL. It looks easier to patch eglibc. > Regards, > Sergey Yakoushkin Cheers, -- Rafael Ávila de Espíndola