[LLVMdev] Target-specific defaults for LLVM tools?

Jonathan Roelofs jonathan at codesourcery.com
Wed Mar 18 10:35:25 PDT 2015

On 3/18/15 11:13 AM, Steve King wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Jonathan Roelofs
> <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> The "proper solution" here w.r.t. assemblers is to implement full support
>> for the integrated assembler for the target arch in llvm, and then flip the
>> default for that target.
> But that is the same as saying LLVM offers no compiler driver until
> integrated assembly is robust for your target, no?  Given that ARM

Indeed. If there is no assembler for your target, integrated or 
otherwise, then either way you can't really build objects for it. I 
don't see what the issue is here.

> took a long time to get there, why not grant other targets that grace
> period too?

They do, and they are offered that "grace period". The difference is 
that those other targets have other external assemblers (usually GNU 
binutils). This default isn't forced on you; you're welcome to (but 
encouraged not to) write a separate assembler. The MC layer has changed 
a lot since before the ARM backend was able to switch over, and it 
should be easier to get IAS going on new targets.

Jon Roelofs
jonathan at codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list