http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-December/107981.html ("[llvm-dev] LLD status update and performance chart" 2016-Dec-11)
says in part: > LLD supports x86, x86-64, x32, AArch64, AMDGPU, ARM, PPC64 and > MIPS32/64, though completeness varies. No mention is made of what FreeBSD calls TARGET_ARCH=powerpc . What is FreeBSD's intent for TARGET_ARCH=powerpc for head (12+) going forward? Are things about TARGET_ARCH=powerpc that would involve lld not to have llvm Depends On status for the META submittal for using lld as the FreeBSD system linker? Similarly for the META submittal for clang targeting powerpc (32-bit) if lld is involved? It would appear that without lld and the like TARGET_ARCH=powerpc via clang would require an external binutils (or at least the linker would need to be external). Since I tend to explore TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 and TARGET_ARCH=powerpc and report evidence for issues that I find, it would be good for me to know how I should view things. For TARGET_ARCH=powerpc should I switch to using an external binutils and ignore both lld and the old, bootstrapped binutils? Would that be a better match to the intent going forward? [In recent months my TARGET_ARCH=powerpc activity has been limited by clang code generation problems with the timing of when R30 is restored for function exit vs. when it is used when floating point is involved via R30 based addressing. Also other time limitations have contributed to a powerpc64 FreeBSD focus primarily.] === Mark Millard markmi at dsl-only.net _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
