mgrang added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42673#992056, @asb wrote:
> My main concern with this patch is that the description doesn't really match > what it does. The current in-tree code _doesn't_ call gcc to link for the > tested configuration (a multilib toolchain), and this is verified with the > tests in test/Driver/riscv32-toolchain.c. https://reviews.llvm.org/D39963 > originally added support for a baremetal toolchain, but was changed to focus > on the multilib Linux toolchain for a couple of reasons: > > 1. This was a more straight-forward change > 2. Downstream users such as yourself had a higher priority for building for a > Linux target > 3. It looks like we'd want to discuss the possibility of adding RISC-V > support to lib/Driver/ToolChains/BareMetal rather than adding yet another > target-specific toolchain > > This patch seems identical to my changes to add a baremetal toolchain > (https://github.com/lowRISC/riscv-llvm/blob/master/clang/0003-RISCV-Implement-clang-driver-for-the-baremetal-RISCV.patch > which was previously submitted as part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D39963), > with a line changed (setting a different name for the linker). Was it meant > to be a one-line patch on top of that work? > > Are you compiling for a Linux target or for bare metal? One problem with > the multilib detection code is that if it fails it tends to do so silently. I > see two paths forward depending on the immediate problem you're seeing: > 4. If you're seeing an issue with the correct linker being selected when > compiling using a Linux toolchain, the correct fix would be to modify that > detection logic committed in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL322276 and add new > tests > 5. If the issue is that you're now trying to use Clang for a bare-metal > target, we should discuss whether to move forwards with my baremetal patch > as-is or to try to modify lib/Driver/ToolChains/BareMetal - probably worth > discussing this on cfe-dev. > > The fact you've hardcoded "riscv32-unknown-linux-gnu-ld" as the linker name > makes me wonder if the current issue you're seeing is 1)? Alex, This patch is based on your previously submitted patch as part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D39963. The issue is that if I pass -target riscv32 then it invokes riscv32-gcc but if I pass -target riscv32-unknown-linux-gnu then is correctly invokes riscv32-unknown-linux-gnu-ld. So what we need to sort out is the behavior we want for the -target option. We should let it fail to find the linker if the complete triple is not passed rather than invoking the gcc driver (that's the behavior on ARM). Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D42673 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
