[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [llvm] r166875 - in /llvm/trunk: lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopIdiomRecognize.cpp test/Transforms/LoopIdiom/basic.ll

Sean Silva silvas at purdue.edu
Sat Oct 27 21:00:27 PDT 2012

If GCC requires it, then pragmatically it's probably safe to do. Is
there any -ffreestanding code that LLVM compiles that wasn't already
being compiled with a GCC toolchain? My guess is that there isn't.

A relevant related question is what freestanding code does LLVM
currently compile in production? FreeBSD kernel and Darwin kernel come
to mind (and Linux is coming along). We also have a couple
microcontroller backends, but given the lack of maintenance (from a
quick look at git log), I'm not sure how much they are being used.
Maybe some embedded ARM and MIPS systems. AFAIK, all of these come
from a background of being built with a GCC toolchain.

-- Sean Silva

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27.10.2012, at 18:24, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 27.10.2012, at 18:15, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote:
>>> How does this affect freestanding implementations?
>> This transform is disabled with -fno-builtin or -ffreestanding.
> Thinking a bit more about this, it looks like the way -ffreestanding is implemented in clang is too conservative. Currently -ffreestanding disables optimizing all builtin functions, just like -fno-builtin. However, the GCC manual says:
>> GCC requires the freestanding environment provide memcpy,memmove, memset and memcmp.
> Should we enable those functions selectively in a freestanding environment? LLVM will start optimizing calls to them, and turn loops into one of those functions if possible. I'm not sure if that behavior is acceptable with -ffreestanding.
> - Ben

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list