Presumably the win32 ABI uses completely different mechanisms for
TLS.
Definitely. As it applies to ELF targets only, maybe it's worth to guard
stuff with assert(Subtarget-isTargetELF)?
--
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov.
Faculty of Mathematics Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State
+SDOperand
+X86TargetLowering::LowerGlobalTLSAddress(SDOperand Op, SelectionDAG
DAG) {
+ // TODO: implement the local dynamic model
+ // TODO: implement the initial execmodel for pic executables
+ assert(!Subtarget-is64Bit() TLS not implemented for X86_64);
+ GlobalAddressSDNode *GA
Thanks Lauro, very nice! Should the TLS bug be closed now?
Now I will implement PIC and TLS for arm-linux, then I will close the
PR941 and open a bug report for each target that doesn't implement
TLS.
Lauro
___
llvm-commits mailing list
On Apr 21, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote:
Thanks Lauro, very nice! Should the TLS bug be closed now?
Now I will implement PIC and TLS for arm-linux, then I will close the
PR941 and open a bug report for each target that doesn't implement
TLS.
I'd prefer to just have it be
Changes in directory llvm/lib/Target/X86:
X86ATTAsmPrinter.cpp updated: 1.100 - 1.101
X86AsmPrinter.cpp updated: 1.239 - 1.240
X86ISelLowering.cpp updated: 1.393 - 1.394
X86ISelLowering.h updated: 1.98 - 1.99
X86InstrInfo.td updated: 1.302 - 1.303
I'll let Evan and/or Anton review this
What about the Intel printer?
Chris Lattner wrote:
Changes in directory llvm/lib/Target/X86:
X86ATTAsmPrinter.cpp updated: 1.100 - 1.101
X86AsmPrinter.cpp updated: 1.239 - 1.240
X86ISelLowering.cpp updated: 1.393 - 1.394
X86ISelLowering.h updated: 1.98 - 1.99
X86InstrInfo.td updated: 1.302
On Apr 20, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Jeff Cohen wrote:
What about the Intel printer?
Presumably the win32 ABI uses completely different mechanisms for
TLS. Unless Lauro is signing up for it, it sounds like an entry for
the top of the X86/README.txt file.
-Chris
