[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] [PATCH] triples for baremetal
amara.emerson at gmail.com
Tue Jun 24 07:35:30 PDT 2014
This looks reasonable to me.
On 24 June 2014 14:58, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 6/23/14, 8:31 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
>> On 23 Jun 2014, at 15:13, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
>>> The main issue with your patch is that it can change user expected
>>> behaviour, and I can't tell you what is the expected behaviour in
>>> Darwin or BSD. If people usually use "unknown" in triples, this will
>>> break their builds. If not, this could break the build of someone who
> I would like to go this route, providing I can get support from the
> community that this is the direction we'd all like to take... I'd rather not
> make triples more complicated by introducing lots of special cases.
> Do you know who the right folks are to ask about the SPIR triples?
> This patch changes behavior a little for macho_embedded targets (i.e. from
> OSType::Unknown to OSType::NoneOS). I see that there is existing code to
> transform triples from things like thumbv7-apple-darwin into
> thumbv7m-apple-unknown-macho. Do you have an expectation to support users
> who are using the latter form of triples who would be surprised by the
> change from thumbv7m-apple-unknown-macho to thumbv7m-apple-none-macho (i.e.
> their thumbv7m-apple-unknown-macho builds no longer work)? Is this a case
> where all three triples are to mean the same thing?
>> I think (Hat: FreeBSD) we only expect to see unknown in the vendor field
>> (e.g. i386-unknown-freebsd). If the OS field is unknown, rather than
>> freebsd, then it's not one of ours and we aren't likely to care. I don't
>> really like the way that we conflate OS with ABI, but then I don't really
>> like anything about triples...
> David, thanks!
> Jon Roelofs
> jonathan at codesourcery.com
> CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
More information about the cfe-commits