On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 05:45:14PM +0100, David Tweed wrote: > OK, some investigation results from the always invigorating world of ABI > configuration issues: > > If you are producing an armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf target then you NEED > TO DEFINITELY NOT USE --abi=aapcs to avoid some FileCheck problems. > However, if you are producing an armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi target then > you NEED --abi=aapcs to avoid some problems. > > On a recent/future ubuntu ARM based system, it's correct to specify > armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf and so we should use that and drop the > --abi=aapcs entry. (It's still an open question whether in other > circumstances plain gnueabi remains an interesting target that ought to be > tested, but on stock ubuntu gnueabihf is the way to go.) If I do that on my > pandaboard I both get rid of some of the existing failures and I don't > create any new ones. I've also tested clang and it produces runnable > executables. So I think this change is what ought to be there. > > Could I ask you to try that configuration options on your buildslaves and > see if that reproduces what I see? Once it's clear this is ok I'll try to do > a formal patch to the ARM installation notes in LLVM.
Free feel to write it down on [1]. ;) > (I don't think aapcs causes "real-life" problems, it just changes function > signatures which FileCheck regexps doesn't understand.) Regards, chenwj [1] http://llvm.org/docs/HowToBuildOnARM.html#how-to-build-on-arm -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taiwan (R.O.C.) Tel:886-2-2788-3799 #1667 Homepage: http://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~chenwj _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
