similar to: Require -funwind-tables for compiler-rt on ARM?

There’s this bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38468. I’ve managed to track it down to a configuration issue. The thing is that in order for libunwind to be usable on ARM Linux, it should be built with the -funwind-tables flag. This flag is conditionally set here: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/libunwind/CMakeLists.txt#L294, if the compiler “supports” it. However, the

Hi Peter, Thanks for your response. > On 18 Nov 2019, at 17:44, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 12:32, Sergej Jaskiewicz via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> There’s this bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38468

> On 18 Nov 2019, at 19:55, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 15:23, Sergej Jaskiewicz <jaskiewiczs at icloud.com <mailto:jaskiewiczs at icloud.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> Thanks for your response. >> >> On 18 Nov 2019, at 17:44, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote:

Adding Juergen to the thread. On Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 12:20 PM Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Ping. > > > > Would anyone be opposed to me trying to revive the in-tree Mach-O TAPI > code? > > > > Thanks, > > Shoaib > > > > *From: *Shoaib Meenai <smeenai at fb.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at

> On 18 Nov 2019, at 22:11, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 17:06, Sergej Jaskiewicz <jaskiewiczs at icloud.com <mailto:jaskiewiczs at icloud.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 18 Nov 2019, at 19:55, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 15:23, Sergej

Actually, sorry, my fix was for the case where you had other arguments beginning with @ that weren't response files, whereas yours has actual response files, so my patch won't help there. CCing Reid and Hans, who did a bunch of the implementation in this area. From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

Hi all, It looks like Juergen landed the TextAPI libraries for Mach-O in https://reviews.llvm.org/D53945, and also had several follow-ups, but then it was deleted entirely by r347874. I'm not sure if the entire deletion was intentional, since the commit message only mentions reverting a certain series of patches; CC Hans. In any case, I'm wondering if there are plans to revive it, since

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 04:48:51PM +0200, Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev wrote: > [ CCed all people who were involved in this thread ] > > Hi Tom, > > personally, I am interested to test the prebuilt-toolchains for > Ubuntu/xenial alias 16.04 LTS and Debian/Jessie v8.5.0 AMD64. > The available toolchains are incomplete and thus useless. > > Just as a fact: There is still no

Hi all, We’re planning to contribute a new implementation of LLD for Mach-O, using the same design as the COFF and ELF ports. This design has proven to work very well for those ports, and we’re keen to explore it for Mach-O as well. Our work is based on an initial prototype created by Peter Collingbourne and Rui Ueyama. Our initial commit is up for review at https://reviews.llvm.org/D75382.

I’m happy to run them, although I’d appreciate a pointer to the appropriate documentation. From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Tobias Hieta via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Reply-To: Tobias Hieta <tobias at plexapp.com> Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 11:15 AM To: Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

I'm unsure why this is failing this week, but when I build for FreeBSD HEAD, I now get a failure to find <stdarg.h>. Very strange. Maybe its missing a -I /usr/include somewhere? [1950/2811] Building CXX object projects/compiler-rt/lib/tsan/CMakeFiles/clang_rt.tsan-x86_64.dir/rtl/tsan_interceptors.cc.o FAILED: /usr/bin/CC -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS

I'm an idiot and sent to llvm-commits instead of llvm-dev. Fixing. On 10/17/17, 5:09 PM, "llvm-commits on behalf of Shoaib Meenai via llvm-commits" <llvm-commits-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote: Hi all (CC beanz for cmake advice), I'm running into a cmake problem when I try to cross-compile a

I discovered that I can hack around my particular problem by placing set_property(TARGET clang PROPERTY INTERFACE_LINK_LIBRARIES) at the end of tools/driver/CMakeLists.txt. I'd prefer to fix this properly though, of course. On 12/1/17, 4:18 PM, "llvm-dev on behalf of Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

https://reviews.llvm.org/rL353906 introduced (presumably accidentally) the "b" top-level directory to the monorepo. The files should be moved to their proper location, but I'm also wondering if there's any way to prevent accidental top-level additions like this. Thanks, Shoaib -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Thank you for the explanation, Ben! I realized I didn’t give enough context for my question: As you noted, the slow/fast unwinder can only do its work if there is enough (runtime) information. Otherwise stack printing usually does exactly what you suggested: printing the one frame corresponding to the recent pc. When I asked if “platforms are required to at least support one kind of unwinder” I

I looked into this further. ld64 has a macho_nlist abstraction over the various underlying nlist structures [1]. On x86-64, the P::getP referenced in n_value will resolve to [2], which in turn goes to [3], which calls OSReadLittleInt64. On a little endian machine, OSReadLittleEndian just calls _OSReadInt64 [4], which in turn does a pointer arithmetic and cast and then dereferences the pointer [5].

Judging by this path: needed by 'tools/lld/Common/VCSVersion.inc' It looks to me like this is **not** a monorepo layout (if it were, lld would not appear in the tools directory). Therefore the LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS=lld is not even doing anything. I don't know how to build without a monorepo these days, and I also don't know what the most recent guidance setting up a monorepo is,

I have made some further investigation. My conclusion is that GNU ld does not do better than lld. Making the --defsym behavior ideal is difficult in the current framework. GNU ld has some unintended behaviors. ld.bfd a.o --defsym 'd=foo' --gc-sections -o a => GNU ld retains .text_foo ld.bfd a.o --defsym 'd=foo+3' --gc-sections -o a => GNU ld drops .text_foo ld.bfd a.o

Hi, In sanitizer code we have two notions of stack unwinders: fast and slow. [1] In the context of sanitizers, stack unwinding is most often for printing error reports that include a stack trace. I am currently trying to fix an issue that is related to some platforms (Darwin) only supporting the fast unwinder, but calling code not being aware of that possibility. My mental model was that

Hi Sjoerd, On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:19 AM Sjoerd Meijer via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I read that out-of-order cores are supported. How about in-order cores? > Would it be easy/difficult to add support for that? > > Cheers, > Sjoerd. > > I don't think that it would be difficult to support in-order superscalar cores. However, it would