similar to: lld and linker scripts

On 19 April 2016 at 06:59, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Dima, > > Adhemerval is working on AArch64 support, and it should be mostly > there, though some missing TLS support. He should know more. Here's some info on TLS. Review D18960 has the initial implementation for TLSDESC support: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18960 I've been

Hi, Some time ago there were some information about aarch64 support for the lld linker project: http://lld.llvm.org/open_projects.html#elf-aarch64 Right now there is no such information. Also there is some presentation described that the simple application can be linked using lld: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2016-03/Presentations/EuroLLVM%202016-%20New%20LLD%20linker%20for%20ELF.pdf What is the

On 26 July 2018 at 15:52, Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote: > On 27 February 2018 at 09:06, Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> A number of companies are shipping products based on FreeBSD/arm, on >> v5 and up. As far as I know those using older processors are also >> using older versions of FreeBSD (with a toolchain based on GCC and >>

On 26 July 2018 at 18:05, Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote: > On 26 July 2018 at 11:08, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: >> On 26 July 2018 at 15:52, Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote: >>> On 27 February 2018 at 09:06, Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> A number of companies are shipping

Checking up on this change: On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 19:38, Ed Maste <emaste at freefall.freebsd.org> wrote: > > From: Ed Maste <emaste at FreeBSD.org> > > By convention settings in ssh_config are shown with a commented out > default. > > Fixes: 6cb52d5bf771 ("upstream: make CheckHostIP default to 'no'...") > --- > ssh_config | 2 +- > 1

On 27 February 2018 at 05:29, Peter Smith via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I've got some downstream patches > for v5 and v6 support (limit branch range, and use different > instructions in stubs), however I don't think anyone has actually > needed support yet. For FreeBSD we're on a path to having Clang + lld as our toolchain for all Tier-1

On 28 October 2016 at 18:12, Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote: > It should be possible to search the path for ld.lld first, then ld, > but to me it seems like it will just be more confusing. Hum, for me it would be less confusing. :) GCC uses bfd by default, LLVM uses LLD. If you want to change, use -fuse-ld. What would be confusing in this scenario? > Clang's current

On 28 October 2016 at 16:54, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 28 October 2016 at 17:41, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: >> There's also -fuse-ld= >> >> That's how I usually do it. > > Right, that gets rid of the override flag. Thanks! :) > > But the arguments about the default and the

On 13 March 2018 at 16:51, Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote: > On 7 February 2018 at 01:20, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> I've landed the patch in r324449. > > To confirm, this change *did not* make it into 6.0.0, correct? I'm > looking at adding the external thunk for FreeBSD now, and we have > 6.0.0 in

On Sat, 5 Nov 2022 at 14:49, Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote: > > From: Yuichiro Naito <naito.yuichiro at gmail.com> > > If the following functions are available, > add an additional check if users are allowed to login imposed by login class. > > * auth_hostok(3) > * auth_timeok(3) > > These functions are implemented on FreeBSD. > > --- >

On 28 October 2016 at 17:41, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > There's also -fuse-ld= > > That's how I usually do it. Right, that gets rid of the override flag. Thanks! :) But the arguments about the default and the cross-compilation error still stand. cheers, --renato

A change between r231216 and r231221 causes an assertion failure on the LLDB FreeBSD bot. The compiler is FreeBSD's in-tree one: FreeBSD clang version 3.5.1 (tags/RELEASE_351/final 225668) 20150115 First failing build: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-freebsd/builds/4668/steps/compile/logs/stdio Assertion: Assertion failed: ((!DD->isTrivial() ||

On 24 April 2015 at 16:32, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > > Until a git mirror is setup, we will need to use subversion ... What needs to happen in order to get the libunwind git mirror set up?

On 13 August 2016 at 11:16, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > There's enough AArch64 to allow lld to self-host and to finish a build > of the base system on FreeBSD. Last we (I and Rafael) checked, it was > mid-june timeframe, but nothing changed since then. FYI when trying to link the FreeBSD/arm64 kernel now I receive tens of thousands of

On Jan 19, 2017 2:48 AM, "Ed Maste" <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote: On 4 January 2017 at 13:34, Peter Smith via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I'm about to start working on range extension thunks in lld. This is > an attempt to summarize the approach I'd like to take and what the > impact will be on lld outside of thunks. Now that LLD works

On 27 May 2015 at 12:29, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> writes: >> Hi Manuel, >> >> I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me know how >> I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP). > > Chandler updated the llvm phabricator doc to point at what we're deploying: > >

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 16:16, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I haven’t documented FreeBSD / NetBSD / Fedora / MacOS / MSVC, and nobody complained at the BoF. I’d like to understand if we should care about documenting these: ideally the toolchain update policy would list which platforms need to be considered and how far back in time is relevant. FreeBSD

On 12 September 2016 at 16:23, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > What's the motivation to not build COFF and Mach-O parts? If you don't need > it, you could just leave it. Are you trying to reduce the executable size? It was just easier to remove coff::link() and mach_o::link() from lld.cpp than to add them to our own build infrastructure

On 30 April 2015 at 10:06, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >> I'd like to resurrect the discussion on replacing libgomp with >> libiomp as the default OpenMP runtime library linked with -fopenmp. >> >> >> For reference, the previous discussion is accessible there: >>

Does FreeBSD have fallocate(2) or equivalent? On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Ed Maste <emaste at freebsd.org> wrote: > On 23 October 2017 at 18:49, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > >> BTW, posix_fallocate() might provide better portability and decrease the > >> likelihood of falling back on ftruncate(). > >