jrtc27 wrote: > > What's the story with the runtimes? Since I left feedback here I came > > across the following comment of yours in the FreeBSD review > > (https://reviews.freebsd.org/D57388#1314874): > > > compiler-rt part can't be upstreamed, because this is a hack - > > > compiler-rt does not support kf type ldbl functions that powerpc64le > > > needs. Upstream usually just uses libgcc (from GCC) for that. > > > > > > We can't just go changing ABI if it's going to break runtimes, and any > > requisite support needs to go upstream first. > > The story is that compiler_rt lacks proper support. It's not > FreeBSD-specific, the issue is also present on Linux. On Linux it's also done > the hacky way - libgcc does sed-renaming TF symbols to KF and clang links > with -lgcc. The proper way would be to write independent code in compiler_rt, > but that is another project on its own (probably much bigger than this). As > much as I'd like it to happen, I understand that this may not make much sense > since TF functions work the same as KF, so simple renaming works fine and > doesn't introduce new bugs.
compiler-rt support needs to be there upstream one way or another given it is the default runtime for FreeBSD, so I suggest you reach out to the maintainers about an appropriate way to support it. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/201298 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
