[lldb-dev] When should ArchSpecs match?

[Zachary Turner via lldb-dev]

“Unknown” is a perfectly fine value for the os though, and I’m not
suggesting to change that.

My point is simply that Jason’s situation (baremetal) is one that is not
even expressible by the Triple syntax. As long as there’s some enum value
that describes the situation (of which unknown is a valid choice), the
problem goes away.
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 8:06 AM <ted.woodward at codeaurora.org> wrote:

> We use 2 triples for Hexagon:
>
> hexagon-unknown-elf (which becomes hexagon-unknown-unknown-elf
> internally), and hexagon-unknown-linux.
>
>
>
> We follow the Linux standard and add in magic to the elf to identify it as
> a Linux binary. But in the hexagon-unknown-elf case we have no way to
> distinguish between standalone (no OS, running on our simulator) or QuRT
> (proprietary OS, could be running on hardware or simulator). In fact, the
> same shared library that has no OS calls (just standard library calls that
> go into the appropriate .so) could run under either one.
>
>
>
> I think requiring a value for every OS would be a non-starter for us.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ted Woodward
>
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
>
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux
> Foundation Collaborative Project
>
>
>
> *From:* lldb-dev <lldb-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *On Behalf Of *Zachary
> Turner via lldb-dev
> *Sent:* Friday, December 7, 2018 4:38 AM
> *To:* Pavel Labath <pavel at labath.sk>
> *Cc:* LLDB <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [lldb-dev] When should ArchSpecs match?
>
>
>
> We can already say that with OSType::Unknown. That’s different than “i
> know that no OS exists”
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 12:00 AM Pavel Labath <pavel at labath.sk> wrote:
>
> On 07/12/2018 01:22, Jason Molenda via lldb-dev wrote:
> > Oh sorry I missed that.  Yes, I think a value added to the OSType for
> NoOS or something would work.  We need to standardize on a textual
> representation for this in a triple string as well, like 'none'.  Then with
> arm64-- and arm64-*-* as UnknownVendor + UnknownOS we can have these marked
> as "compatible" with any other value in the case Adrian is looking at.
> >
> >
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> As another data point, it is usually impossible to tell from looking at
> an ELF file which os it is intended to run on. You can tell the
> architecture because it's right in the elf header, but that's about it.
> Some OSs get around this by adding a special section like
> .this.is.an.android.binary, but not all of them. So in general, we need
> to be able to say "I have no idea which OS is this binary intended for".
>
> pl
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20181207/cafa79f8/attachment.html>