https://github.com/koachan closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79485
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
koachan wrote:
> Can you edit the description (first comment) to mention your testing?
Done, and thanks!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79485
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/lis
https://github.com/koachan edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79485
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
MaskRay wrote:
> > I'd run 2-stage builds/tests (either with the existing machinery or by
> > building LLVM twice explicitly: once with an external compiler and then
> > again with the just-built one).
>
> It does seem that at least when it comes to LLVM itself, 2-stage build/tests
> works ok
https://github.com/MaskRay approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79485
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/brad0 approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79485
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
koachan wrote:
> I'd run 2-stage builds/tests (either with the existing machinery or by
> building LLVM twice explicitly: once with an external compiler and then again
> with the just-built one).
It does seem that at least when it comes to LLVM itself, 2-stage build/tests
works okay under all
rorth wrote:
> `embmedany` is already rejected by the driver at the moment:
>
> ```
> error: unsupported argument 'embmedany' to option '-mcmodel=' for target
> 'sparc64'
> ```
Seems sensible indeed.
> On the testing issue, however, would compiling LLVM with each of the code
> models + running
koachan wrote:
`embmedany` is already rejected by the driver at the moment:
```
error: unsupported argument 'embmedany' to option '-mcmodel=' for target
'sparc64'
```
On the testing issue, however, would compiling LLVM with each of the code
models + running codegen tests be enough to at least
rorth wrote:
GCC also supports `-mcmodel=embmedany`. Maybe it would be good to reject that
with a clear message?
As for the generated code (not this PR, I'd say), it would certainly be good to
test that on some larger code base (like LLVM itself) and, preferably, also
test actual interoperab
koachan wrote:
> Have you checked whether these code models are actually implemented and how
> complete they are? For example, if one model is very far from complete,
> perhaps we should be honest and say it is unsupported.
All three I listed is implemented in some capacity; the one that is th
MaskRay wrote:
Have you checked whether these code models are actually implemented and how
complete they are?
For example, if one model is very far from complete, perhaps we should be
honest and say it is unsupported.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79485
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-driver
Author: Koakuma (koachan)
Changes
This adds GCC-compatible names for code model selection on 64-bit SPARC with
absolute code.
(32-bit target does not have selectable code models)
---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79
https://github.com/koachan created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79485
This adds GCC-compatible names for code model selection on 64-bit SPARC with
absolute code.
(32-bit target does not have selectable code models)
>From 99caee180932a8b41c91d9a5d5826d463e816093 Mon Sep 17 00:00:0
14 matches
Mail list logo
