similar to: Building an LLVM cross-compiler

Hi everyone, 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. 4. Build compiler-rt builtins and crt with the freshly-built clang. One need to set C_COMPILER_WORKS to skip the checks. 5. Build libc.a/libc.so Now the freshly-built clang can compile a "Hello, World" program. @Martin Storsjö

Thanks everyone for this discussion. Turns out that in my effort to make it possible to run multiple instances of this script in parallel, I inadvertently hid the issue. I made each instance use a directory that has $1 appended to the name and the wrapper script provided a unique value with $LINENO. :( MaskRay, thanks for fixing the problem. All the PPC bots are back to green now. On Thu, Sep 3,

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of David > Blaikie via llvm-dev > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 12:46 PM > To: James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> > Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [LLD] Support DWARF64, debug_info "sorting" > > On Wed, Nov 11,

I think that was maybe the discussion on https://reviews.llvm.org/D78245 On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 6:22 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > I have a vague memory that libcxx wanted it for something, and claimed it > would be hard to work around not having it. > > Anyone else remember that? I can’t dredge up the details, sorry… > > In any event, a separate

You’ve hit on one of the odd historical messes in LLVM. Compiler-RT can’t really be treated as a monolithic set of libraries when you are bootstrapping. In order to even configure the LLVM sanitizer runtimes you need libc and many other OS interfaces, so when bootstrapping you need to build the compiler-rt builtins library separately from the sanitizers. This can be done either by using the

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, Cág via llvm-dev wrote: > The process, in my opinion, should go like this: > 1. Get the sources (llvm, lld, compiler-rt, libunwind, libcxx...). > 2. Build an LLVM cross-compiler toolchain using native distribution's > compiler (i.e. build an x86_64 clang executable that targets aarch64). > 3. Cross-compile libc and other libraries/dependencies to run the

> I still think that we do bfd locs with a decent option to change for at least the current release and sources and then, once we're a little more certain we have everything that might want to parse dwarf (say by working with dwarf-discuss), we can change the default. Given what’s been found, I think Eric/Dave are correct, use bfd behavior by default with an option to do the new thing.

Thanks for feedback. I agree with patch and numbers this will be a more concrete discussion, but I wanted to judge overall receptiveness to this approach and see maybe there was a better way. "Whilst the majority of objects will only have a single CU in them, there will be exceptions (LTO-generated objects, -r merged objects etc), so we do need to consider this approach." David can you

(Adding back Cc: which got dropped) > (Igor - I don't know what happened, but your email split the mail thread in gmail for me.) The problem is that https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146528.html does not have an In-Reply-To: header. Added Igor to the Cc: list. If we go down the route (sorting DWARF64 after DWARF32), compared with a lightweight parse, I'd prefer

Any kind of variable definition on a CHECK-NOT line would seem like it would be asking for trouble. Do we allow text variable definitions on a NOT? False fails are better than false matches. Given that it will fail on a line where you'd expect a match, or possibly for the line to be skipped, it's a matter of refining the match expression, which is something that you have to do sometimes

Mapping between Windows DACLs and Posix user-group-other file permissions is complex, depends on externalities, and is necessarily lossy: http://www.cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using-filemodes.html http://www.cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/ntsec.html While there's a lot of information at those links, they don't completely explain how the mapping works. (And who knows if GnuWin32 does the mapping

Hi Eric & Orlando, It’s great to see interest in a lot of different aspects of debug info. At the same time, I’m concerned about a risk to making the topic so broad that we don’t have time to get through all the things people want to get through. I’m thinking there’s a different way to slice the topics, hopefully without much overlap, but that will allow a bit more focus. No doubt a lot of

As has been mentioned elsewhere, Sony generally fixes up references from debug info to stripped functions (of any length) using -1, because that's a less-likely-to-be-real address than 0x0 or 0x1. (0x0 is a typical base address for shared libraries, I'd think using it has the potential to mislead various consumers.) For .debug_ranges we use -2, because both a 0/0 pair and a -1/-1 pair

Just a note about this: >I like this. I hope you don't mind if I borrow some of these ideas to >play with. C_COMPILER_WORKS is something I've never heard of. I'm also working on building a clang-based toolchain from scratch. To avoid CMake bailing out when a binary can't be linked, I use: -DCMAKE_TRY_COMPILE_TARGET_TYPE=STATIC_LIBRARY Along with:

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:20 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 5:00 PM > > To: Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> > > Cc: Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com>; Alexey Lapshin > >

Hi Scott, It's possible they've missed it, so I've explicitly CC'ed a number of the usual DWARF suspects, at least some of whom are on the standards committee. I don't have anything specific to add myself. James On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 15:25, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I don't know what an acceptable ping rate on an RFC is, but I also

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:21 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> > > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 1:07 AM > > To: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > > Cc: Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>; Alexey Lapshin > >

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 9:57 AM Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> wrote: > > > On 2020-05-30, David Blaikie wrote: > >On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 8:50 PM Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 2020-05-29, David Blaikie wrote: > >> >On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:20 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: >

Another thing to consider about your feature idea is that the output may be noisy depending on what you were hoping for. SLH tries to mitigate anything that could potentially be a problem and thus it instruments almost every branch, load, and function entry, for example. There isn't a lot of signal about what is really a gadget among the code instrumented by SLH. It really tries to be

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 8:50 PM Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> wrote: > > On 2020-05-29, David Blaikie wrote: > >On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:20 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > >> > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:21 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > On 2020-05-28, David