[lld] r249752 - Revert: r249728 - Roll back r249726 and r249723 because they broke buildbots.

Hal Finkel via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Oct 13 11:52:47 PDT 2015


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rui Ueyama" <ruiu at google.com>
> To: "Rafael EspĂ­ndola" <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "llvm-commits" <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:51:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [lld] r249752 - Revert: r249728 - Roll back r249726 and r249723 because they broke buildbots.
> 
> 
> I have a mixed feeling about this. Setting familiar values is
> probably psychologically better because you wouldn't even think
> about why the values are the same as before. On the other hand side,
> this is undeniably a cargo cult.
> 
> 
> That being said, I'm inclined to Rafael's suggestion. We are serious
> about the linker, and it's not only me who envision that LLD be one
> of the standard tools in the Unix world. We would be able to simply
> stop that cargo cult ourselves.
> 

Reverted in r250205.

Thanks again,
Hal

> 
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Rafael EspĂ­ndola <
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org > wrote:
> 
> 
> > I had originally thought that they had been causing problems, but
> > going back and restoring the original value (but keeping the
> > page-size fix, which definitely is necessary), sill produces a
> > working hello-world binary. Thus, I don't have a good answer for
> > you, except to say that these are the same magic values that
> > ld.gold uses. That having been said, I'd prefer to keep them this
> > way. Poking around in the debugger, this makes the addresses look
> > more like what I'm used to seeing, and FWIW, matching the behavior
> > of existing linkers here seems like a prudent approach.
> 
> So, this is a small example of "cargo coding" I would like to avoid.
> 
> Changing the values only when we actually know why their are needed
> seems a much better solution. In the X86_64 case that is how we found
> out what the restrictions actually were and have them documented in a
> comment.
> 
> I can see why it has to be 64k aligned on ppc, but the original
> values was too.
> 
> Would you mind reverting the getVAStart part until we actually know
> of
> a reason why a given architecture has to be different?
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
> 
> 

-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory


More information about the llvm-commits mailing list