jroelofs added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23420#513820, @zatrazz wrote:
> Yes, although in pratice for shared libraries this is not an issue (at least > on Linux with current linker strategies). And I open for suggestion on how to > proceed in this case since we have some other options: > > 1. Add the required soft-sp implementations when building for Linux (this > might happen not only on aarch64, but any other ABI that defines long double > using fallback soft-fp) Are the softfp symbols you need not contained in libgcc.a? > 2. Remove the possible soft-fp usages on all the tests. However this will > lead to possible remove *all* the FP cases if libcxx should be used in a pure > soft-fp platform > 3. Only allows the libcxx + linunwind to be built against compiler-rt https://reviews.llvm.org/D23420 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
