[cfe-commits] Fix search path for clang on latest DragonFly releases [revised patches]

John Marino draco at marino.st
Tue Dec 11 16:14:50 PST 2012

On 11/29/2012 14:39, John Marino wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 14:38, Rafael EspĂ­ndola wrote:
>>> However, what is the process to see this bug report 14417
>>> accomplished? I
>>> don't really want to stay subscribed to this mailing list for a single
>>> patch. I would have thought opening a bug report alone would have been
>>> sufficient.
>> No, we do code reviews on the list. I guess you could use phabricator
>> to get messages just on this thread, but I never used it myself so I
>> am not sure.
>> This patch needs a test. Note that with this patch the driver will be
>> passing multiple -Ls to the linker. It would be better to detect which
>> gcc instalation will be used and pass just that one. See
>> GCCInstallationDetector for example.
> So I spent time over the last couple of days testing the patched Clang.
> I found out quickly that I missed patching one file to change the header
> search patch, and also found that a GCC-built clang could not build
> clang (Problem with dwarf EH).
> So I revised my patches and reposted to
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14417 . It passes the clang tests
> and a GCC-built clang can build clang now.
> Some highlights:
> * Only specify gcc 4.7 or gcc 4.4, not both
> * removed rpath-link switches
> * Added eh-frame-hdr support
> * added gnu-hash support
> * added dynamic export support
> * Fixed crt* start and endfile switches, they were completely wrong due
> to last year's updates (mirroring FreeBSD's crt* changes)
> * added pie support
> * Added different libgcc spec for gcc 4.7 (differs greatly from 4.4)
> It turns out that DragonFly already had a test, dragonfly.c, which
> passed with the previous patch. However this new patch set required the
> dragonfly.c driver test to be updated as well.
> The patches were written against clang 3.1:
> http://llvm.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=9608&action=diff
> If they are accepted, I'd like analogous patches to be applied to head
> and clang 3.2. Do I need to generate those or are these 3.1 patches
> sufficient?
> John
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Per request from Rafael, I have applied these release 3.1 patches to 
trunk.  They applied cleanly.  The resulting diff is attached.

Please review to significantly improve clang's support on DragonFly!
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: clang_trunk_dfly_support.diff.txt
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20121212/f424b142/attachment.txt>

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list