Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc ): What is intended to be required for C++ exceptions to work?

[Reminder of my context: these amd64 efforts are really trying to make sure that I interpret powerpc family behavior correctly for C++ exception handling. Still it may be that there are other useful side-effects of my investigations.] On 2016-Dec-1, at 8:57 PM, Mark Millard wrote: > Quick

Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc ): What is intended to be required for C++ exceptions to work?

On 2 Dec 2016, at 08:12, Mark Millard wrote: > > [Reminder of my context: these amd64 efforts are really > trying to make sure that I interpret powerpc family behavior > correctly for C++ exception handling. Still it may be that > there are other useful side-effects of my

Re: Cross built head -r309179 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 with clang 3.9.0/powerpc64-binutils based buildworld operates; but fails "self-hosted buildworld" for undefined references

Interesting, that is quite a lot of progress if it boots with a crossbuild. I wonder if editing /usr/src/contrib/llvm/lib/Support/Atomic.cpp so the GNU_ATOMICS path is taken will work around these errors until someone more knowledgeable can comment. On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Mark Millard

Re: WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND vs. WITHOUT_LLVM_LIBUNWIND, clang vs. gcc (such as devel/powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc ): What is intended to be required for C++ exceptions to work?

On 2016-Dec-2, at 12:12 AM, Mark Millard wrote: > [Reminder of my context: these amd64 efforts are really > trying to make sure that I interpret powerpc family behavior > correctly for C++ exception handling. Still it may be that > there are other useful side-effects of my investigations.] > >