[llvm-branch-commits] Deleted Mips symbols in the 3.5 branch

[Daniel Sanders]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Sanders
> Sent: 03 December 2014 17:23
> To: 'Tom Stellard'; Stellard, Thomas; llvm-branch-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: RE: Deleted Mips symbols in the 3.5 branch
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Stellard [mailto:thomas.stellard at amd.com]
> > Sent: 03 December 2014 16:25
> > To: Daniel Sanders; Stellard, Thomas; llvm-branch-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> > Subject: Re: Deleted Mips symbols in the 3.5 branch
> >
> > On 12/03/2014 05:11 AM, Daniel Sanders wrote:
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Tom Stellard [mailto:thomas.stellard at amd.com]
> > >> Sent: 03 December 2014 02:16
> > >> To: Daniel Sanders; Stellard, Thomas; llvm-branch-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> > >> Subject: Re: Deleted Mips symbols in the 3.5 branch
> > >>
> > >> On 12/02/2014 05:54 PM, Daniel Sanders wrote:
> > >>> I could be completely off-track here, but my initial attempts at using
> abi-
> > >> compliance-checker on a subset of the public headers (everything in
> > >> $prefix/include/llvm/Target, and
> > >> $prefix/include/llvm/ExecutionEngine/ExecutionEngine.h) haven't
> > reported
> > >> anything other than --prefix related differences and this got me
> thinking.
> > >>>
> > >>> We only need to worry about symbols that the user can directly access
> > >> from the definitions in the public (installed) headers and not the whole
> > >> symbol table, don't we? These symbols are in the symbol table for the
> > >> shared library, but as far as I can tell there is no definition in the public
> > >> headers that could enable a user to directly reference anything from
> > >> $srcdir/lib/Target/Mips (not even the create* functions).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> This is a good point, and I think you are right about this.  I have been
> > >> using the ABI checker with -objects-only so it wasn't considering the
> > >> headers at all.  I think we are probably OK then with these deleted
> > symbols
> > >> for now, thanks for looking into this and sorry you had to be the guinea
> > pig.
> > >>
> > >
> > > No problem. I need to learn quite a lot of the implementation detail for
> C++
> > anyway and this has been very helpful for that.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > It took one hour and 8 GBs of memory, but I got the ABI checker working
> > with headers.
> > It looks like there is one patch that breaks the ABI: r223018  In
> > include/llvm/CodeGen/CallingConvLower, this commits adds new
> members
> > to the middle of
> > enum LocInfo, which changes the values of some existing members.  The
> > new members should
> > be added to the end.  Would you be able to fix this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tom
> 
> Fixed in r223242.

Nearly forgot to ask. Should I do this for the trunk too?