alexandreyy added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702#970844, @labath wrote:
> 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.) Thanks, @labath . The ABI plugin for PPC64be is not working: https://reviews.llvm.org/D5988 . It was implemented based on the x86_64 plugin and needs to be fixed. We could commit this patch and merge the plugins when both plugins work properly. https://reviews.llvm.org/D41702 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
