similar to: Adding minimal target support to build clang

Hello! I would like to debug Clang but avoid having to build LLVM with debug symbols enabled due to the size of the debug build which causes problems on the target system where I want to debug due to disk constraints. Is it possible to build LLVM and Clang but enable debug symbols for Clang only? If yes, how? Adrian PS: I'm only receiving digests on this list, so please keep me CC'ed.

As well as the actual patch reviews, has there been official approval that the M68k experimental backend can be added to trunk? I guess we need a "Backend: M68k" bugzilla component - is there anything else? On 13/11/2020 22:41, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz via llvm-dev wrote: > Hello! > > On 11/3/20 6:10 PM, Min-Yih Hsu wrote: >> Just a quick update on the Motorola 6800

Hi All, Just a quick update on the Motorola 6800 backend: Based on the feedback, "M68k" (with lowercase "k") will now be the canonical target name and "m68k" be the target triple name. I've updated all the patches under review to reflect this change. I'm also asking for everyone's help to review all the patches. /* Target independent changes */ 1.

Hello David! On 11/16/20 11:30 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev wrote: > Generally, the bar for being in-tree is fairly low, the bar to being removed > from the experimental-back-ends list is much higher. An experimental back end > is not built by default and is not in any of the binary releases. > > Experimental back ends provide a probation period for the maintainer community.

On 11/30/18 8:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > Better yet, since it's only 17 files, how about doing context-specific > changes? "This API is terrible", "Hateful interface", "Don't touch my > freakin' code", "What in the world were they thinking?" etc? Or just leave it as is because we're all grown up and don't freak out when a piece of

On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 1:27 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 11/15/20 9:33 PM, Simon Pilgrim via llvm-dev wrote: > > As well as the actual patch reviews, has there been official approval that the > > M68k experimental backend can be added to trunk? I guess we need a > > "Backend: M68k" bugzilla component -

Hello! Almost two years ago, Artyom Goncharov submitted an initial effort for a backend for the Motorola 68000 architecture [1] which was eventually not merged, unfortunately. I elaborated why I supported the idea of such a backend [2]. Recently, we started a fundraising campaign on the platform Bountysource.com to port the M68K backend in GCC to the new MODE_CC register representation which was

On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 10:37, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz < glaubitz at physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > So, I think in case there was a problem with the backend in LLVM, the > community > would have enough momentum to work towards solving this issue. > Great! I agree. But we will enable the target in Debian the moment it becomes > usable > and we will expose it to as much

Hi Min! On 11/3/20 6:10 PM, Min-Yih Hsu wrote: > Showing the prerequisites to become an experimental target and eventually, > an official target. We're currently struggling on setting up the buildbot > but I believe Adrian (CC-ed) is working on that. So I hope the patches can > be sorted out while waiting for the buildbot. The m68k machine is actually already up and running, I

Hello! On 11/10/20 2:49 PM, Cág via llvm-dev wrote: > Just a quick update. Here's what worked for me here*: > 1. Get the sources. > 2. Build clang, llvm, lld. > 3. Install libc headers to a sysroot. Alternatively, use a Debian-based system which allows co-installation of system libraries for multiple architectures (Multi-Arch). Never understood why other distributions

Hello! On 11/3/20 6:10 PM, Min-Yih Hsu wrote: > Just a quick update on the Motorola 6800 backend: Based on the feedback, > "M68k" (with lowercase "k") will now be the canonical target name and > "m68k" be the target triple name. I've updated all the patches under review > to reflect this change. Are there any news on this? The M68k buildbot is ready

On 11/15/20 9:33 PM, Simon Pilgrim via llvm-dev wrote: > As well as the actual patch reviews, has there been official approval that the > M68k experimental backend can be added to trunk? I guess we need a > "Backend: M68k" bugzilla component - is there anything else? Sounds good. I'll file that bug tomorrow. Thanks, Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz :

Hi! I have made a small change to the clang Driver code [1] which fixes the testsuite on Linux/sparc64 Currently, more than 400 tests fail on Linux/sparc64 [2] which drops to around 70 failures with the fix applied. The reason for that is that without the fix, all 32-bit tests will fail on 64-bit Linux/sparc64 since clang is unable to find the 32-bit shared libraries on the 64-bit system. What

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 20:27, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > As many of these classic systems still have very active communities, > especially the Amiga community, > development efforts are still very strong. For example, despite being the > oldest port of the Linux > kernel, the m68k port has still multiple active kernel

I know it's really early in the project's life, but another question I had: How does the generated 68K code perform, at least compared to modern GCC? -- Chris

On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 19:13, Min-Yih Hsu <minyihh at uci.edu> wrote: > Thanks for all your feedback, those were extremely helpful, especially the > guidelines to split the patches. I think in my case, patch 3 ~ 6 are the > most problematic, I will rework them shortly. > Perfect, thanks! And most importantly, I'll present a roadmap regarding blockers we need to > clear

Hi All, I've just installed a test laptop with CentOS Stream 8.1. I notice that the default install has both CentOS-Base and CentOS-Base-Appstream repos enabled. Is that necessary, or should I just have the Appstream repos enabled. The reason I'm asking is because I'm having trouble updating the installation. The problem seems to be some installed rpms seem to depend on updates from

In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug. Jarkko Sakkinen (15): MIPS: replace **** with a hug Documentation: replace **** with a hug drm/nouveau: replace **** with a hug m68k: replace **** with a hug parisc: replace **** with a hug cpufreq: replace **** with a hug ide: replace **** with a hug media: replace **** with a hug mtd: replace **** with a hug

On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 08:25 -0500, johnny at centos.org wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the University > of Limerick. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you > recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe. > On 4/21/20 2:09 PM, Tony Molloy wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I've just

On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 18:53, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz < glaubitz at physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > So, shall we setup a server for that or is there some existing > infrastructure > from LLVM that is used in this case? > Unfortunately, we don't have a centralised infrastructure like GCC. Each target community is responsible for maintaining their own buildbots. All we