On Fri, Apr 8, 2016, 10:45 AM Paul Robinson < paul_robin...@playstation.sony.com> wrote:
> probinson added inline comments. > > ================ > Comment at: include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td:2371 > @@ +2370,3 @@ > + > +Not all targets support this attribute. ELF targets support this > attribute when using binutils v2.20.1 or higher and glibc v2.11.1 or > higher. Non-ELF targets currently do not support this attribute. > + }]; > ---------------- > joerg wrote: > > probinson wrote: > > > echristo wrote: > > > > rjmccall wrote: > > > > > echristo wrote: > > > > > > Probably better to say linux fwiw and not ELF. > > > > > The validation code in Sema is checking for an ELF target. If the > restriction is more precise than that, then we should make a TargetInfo > callback. Do the BSDs and other ELF targets not use binutils/glibc? > > > > We should make a TargetInfo callback. BSDs and other ELF targets > aren't guaranteed to use binutils/glibc (some of them have even switched to > llvm already) - and I don't know what the state of ifunc support on those > architectures is. > > > Hear hear. PS4 is ELF but we don't use glibc. > > The attribute is not Linux specific, so ELF is a reasonable first > approximation. Most BSDs have some ifunc support at least. I'm not in favor > of doing any checks beyond ELF -- even on Linux the availability of working > ifunc support depends on other factors like whether the binary is > dynamically linked. > What's the failure mode if the target doesn't actually support it? > Unknown relocation likely. > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D15524 > > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
