labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#969294, @hfinkel wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#969179, @labath wrote: > > > Is the only difference between ppc64 and ppc64le ABIs in the endianness of > > the values? > > If so, could we make one unified ABI which takes the endianness as an > > argument (in the constructor, or as a template argument, or deduces it from > > target endiannes, ...) ? > > > The ABIs have some other differences. The largest difference between the ABIs > is how indirect-calls (and, thus, function pointers) work. There are some > other more-minor differences, for example, some of the call-frame offsets are > different. It still might be possible to unify the support (we certainly > have one backend in LLVM for both), but it's a bit more involved than just > switching the endianness. Thanks for the explanation. These don't sound like major differences. Could you take a look the possibility of merging these two plugins? I scanned through the source code, and it looks like a large part of it is the same, so I'm hoping that we can make like 80% of this code go away with a unified plugin. If you hit some major roadblock which would prevent doing that, then that's fine, but I would at least like to know what the blocker is. (And sorry for the delays, I've been OOO last week.) https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
