similar to: compiler-rt uses non-existent macro: __SOFT_FP__

Specifying -no-implicit-float prevents LLVM from using non-GPR registers for purely integer operations. This is useful for operating systems (such as Wind River's VxWorks) that support tasks that do not save all registers on context switch. This presents an interesting problem for variadic functions that may optionally take non-integer arguments (e.g. printf style functions). Should non-GPR

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Damanjit Singh <dsingh at adobe.com> wrote: > >> Hi Saleem, >> >> Though a simple app works great I am facing few issues trying to link a >> slightly complex object file, generated via LLVM, with some libs generated >> via

Greetings, As previously mentioned, the unwind contents are going to be moved today. Im working on this now. If you could please hold off any commits to the Unwind part of things, it would be greatly appreciated. See you on the new layout! -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Dan Albert <danalbert at google.com> wrote: > >> Shouldn't it just use the default unwinder for the given platform? >> > > Sure, but what is the default unwinder for a given platform? > > Lets go with Linux. I have two different

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 22 April 2015 at 03:40, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: >> So after a bit of a hiatus (sorry, other stuff has been eating up my free >> time), Id like to pick this up again. I think that its a matter of just >> copying the unwind sources into the right

Hi Saleem, Though a simple app works great I am facing few issues trying to link a slightly complex object file, generated via LLVM, with some libs generated via Visual Studio - 1. Seems IMAGE_SCN_MEM_16BIT is only written for the the first header in the COFF file, thus functions in other headers (if you are using function sections) don’t work. I was able to workaround this by forcing this entry

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Dan Albert <danalbert at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Dan Albert <danalbert at google.com> wrote: >> >>> Shouldn't it just use the default unwinder for the given platform? >>> >>

Thank you so much Saleem, The target is Windows phone 8.1 (ARM). I'll update the crash details tomorrow. One big problem is that I have to use a physical windows phone for execution. I wonder if it is possible to execute such "exes" using qemu. Regards, Kashyap On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at

Thanks a lot Saleem, The issue is fixed and a simple app works fine now. -Daman On 08/06/14 12:57 pm, "Nick Lewycky" <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: >Damanjit Singh wrote: >> Thanks Saleem, Nick. >> >> I will try with the latest code and share the results. >> >> Though, just curious if I need to really use clang to generate the >> object file

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com > wrote: > Sergey, > > Not that it'll save you much hassle, but here's an implementation of > __aeabi_idiv0 and __aeabi_ldiv0 that I've been sitting on for a while. > > I vaguely remember compnerd suggesting that I don't commit them to > compiler_rt, but I don't remember

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 2:05 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote: > Saleem, Owen, others on the thread who are concerned about this: it seems > that some of the concern is that the project goals are too narrow, and thus > the eventual result may not serve the full community well over time. > > Would any of you be interested in what we should consider as the list

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 30 January 2015 at 20:43, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> > wrote: > > Last time we brought this up, there was only partial consensus, and then > > someone arbitrarily declared total consensus (without compelling > arguments > > in any particular direction)

Hello all, There was some interest from a number of a few people about adding support for embedded linker options to ELF. This would be an extension that requires linker support to actually work, but has significant prior art with PE/COFF as well as MachO both having support for this. The desire here is to actually add support to LLVM to pass along the necessary information into the object

Thanks Saleem, Nick. I will try with the latest code and share the results. Though, just curious if I need to really use clang to generate the object file and the current steps won't work? I ask because using .c file was only an illustration. For my project the IR is not generated from .c files or clang. Thanks, Daman Sent from my phone On 08-Jun-2014, at 11:00 am, "Saleem

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 9 September 2014 02:18, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> > wrote: > > The current implementations actually return 0. Can you point out where > that > > doesn't hold please? > > With the current implementation... > > int foo(int a) { > return

On 30 Jan 2015 21:24, "Saleem Abdulrasool" <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > The library is agnostic of the unwinder, the driver is who cares (as it needs to generate the linker invocation). I think that adding a flag to control that similar to -rtlib is probably what we may have to do then. What about the default unwinder for Compiler-RT? Should we assume our own?

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > >> What about the default unwinder for Compiler-RT? Should we assume our >> own? Gcc's? Assuming nothing will break compilation, since the libraries >> won't be available...

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 3:46 AM Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 4:17 PM Johan Engelen <jbc.engelen at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> Since 2724d9e12960cc1d93eeabbfc9aa1bffffa041cc, llvm-config -cxxflags >> no longer reports the C++ language standard version (e.g. "-std=c++14") >> used to

On 13 June 2015 at 04:12, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > The behavior was taken from GAS. I don't know if there are applications > using this and dependent on the behavior. Given that this is a GNU > extension, I think its better to keep the behavior similar to GAS rather > than implement and diverge. I kind of agree with Saleem, here. We don't

In spite of this possibly raising a holy war, I thought I would bring up this question again. When switching between a couple of LLVM repositories, I find having to switch between coding styles a bit of an annoyance. It always takes me a while to get adjusted when switching between LLVM (or clang) and lld. While not an absolute show stopper, not having such friction would be nicer. I realize