similar to: Cross Compiling Samba 4.0.6 for ARM increases size of binaries

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

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

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

> 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

After re-cmaking and rebuilding everything from scratch, I'm seeing failures in MCJIT. It this something known or expected? I build LLVM/clang with pre-packaged clang-3.7.0, with "-stdlib=libc++". Example failure: /w/bld/org/./bin/lli -remote-mcjit -mcjit-remote-process=/w/bld/org/./bin/lli-child-target /w/src/llvm.org/test/ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/remote/eh.ll -- Exit Code:

Thanks all. Amara, could you take a look? > On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Oliver Stannard <oliver.stannard at arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > > I’ve raised: > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35359 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35359> > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35360 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35360> >

Hi Lang, I am on Ubuntu 14.04. I am building ToT: llvm, clang, polly, lld, compiler-rt, libcxx, libcxxabi. The build compiler is: clang+llvm-3.7.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-14.04 The failures show up during "make check-all". My cmake command was: cmake -G 'Unix Makefiles' -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/w/c/org -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD:STRING=all

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > tags 653294 + jessie Bug #653294 [hellanzb] hellanzb: doesn't work with python-twisted 11.1.0-1 (patch included) Added tag(s) jessie. > tags 701439 + jessie Bug #701439 [src:ircd-hybrid] ircd-hybrid: ftbfs with eglibc-2.17 Added tag(s) jessie. > tags 616910 + jessie Bug #616910 [src:musiclibrarian] musiclibrarian: deprecation of

Hi, I was trying to create a new *Store* instruction and inserting it to LLVM IR (.ll) file. I found the following constructor in LLVM Manual: StoreInst::StoreInst <http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/classllvm_1_1StoreInst.html#aa2a72f9a51b317f5b4ab8695adf59025> (Value <http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/classllvm_1_1Value.html> * Val, Value

Hi Oliver, Thanks for trying this. Could you file a different PR for each of the problem you found and reference the umbrella PR: http://llvm.org/PR35347? <http://llvm.org/PR35347?> Thanks, -Quentin > On Nov 17, 2017, at 8:17 AM, Oliver Stannard <oliver.stannard at arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > > One more reproducer, this time with small (<64bit) values

Misters, Let me introduce myself : Guillaume FORTAINE, Engineer in Computer Science. Me and my partners are currently working on a Virtualization Firmware. After an analysis of the various solutions (Citrix, VMware and Microsoft), it seemed natural to our eyes, to enable a true bare-metal hypervisor, to go as close as possible to the hardware, hence the BIOS. That's why we are currently

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 10:42 -0700, pranav desai wrote: > > Thanks Andrew for the reply. > > > > Do we have a TODO list need to support cross compilation using the waf > > build system? > > I can try and hack around the build system. > > The issue is the python detection.

To give an update here, we actually are not missing a mapping. The code complains because we are copying around a fp16 into a gpr32 and that shouldn’t be done with a copy (default mapping). I extended the repairing code to issue G_ANYEXT in those cases instead of asserting. However, now, I have to teach instruction select about those ANYEXT otherwise we’ll fallback in that case. But that’s a

> What version of glibc are you building with on x86? 2.11.1 for 64-bit x86 linux $ ldd --version ldd (Ubuntu EGLIBC 2.11.1-0ubuntu7.8) 2.11.1 On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Sergey Matveev <earthdok at google.com> wrote: > Those changes shouldn't affect ARM at all, since everything is under #if > defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__). > > What version of glibc are