[PATCH] D95755: [ELF] Support a few elf32lriscv_* & elf64lriscv_* emulations

[Fangrui Song via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

MaskRay marked 2 inline comments as done.
MaskRay added a subscriber: jimw.
MaskRay added a comment.

In D95755#2532983 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95755#2532983>, @luismarques wrote:

> Overall seems fine to me.

Thanks!

> I don't know if it's worth it more thoroughly testing the various suffix combinations?

That is excessive and does not seem to useful to me. I don't intend to add them in my binutils emulation & target triple patch https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2021-January/115156.html

Actually, I am not sure adding `_ilp32f`/`_ilp32`/`_lp64f`/`_lp64` suffixes is a good idea if the only difference is the different library paths (which can be suppressed by `ld -nostdlib`). @jimw

LLD does not have the concept of default library paths. It works for all targets we support because the compiler drivers pass through the library paths.



================
Comment at: lld/test/ELF/emulation-riscv.s:23-24
 # RV32-NEXT:     FileVersion: 1
-# RV32-NEXT:     OS/ABI: SystemV (0x0)
+# SYSV32-NEXT:   OS/ABI: SystemV (0x0)
+# FBSD32-NEXT:   OS/ABI: FreeBSD (0x9)
 # RV32-NEXT:     ABIVersion: 0
----------------
luismarques wrote:
> Unless the -NEXT suffix interacts across prefixes (?!), aren't the -NEXT suffixes here unneeded and misleading?
-NEXT suffix interacts across prefixes.


================
Comment at: lld/test/ELF/emulation-riscv.s:64-65
 # RV64-NEXT:     FileVersion: 1
-# RV64-NEXT:     OS/ABI: SystemV (0x0)
+# SYSV64-NEXT:   OS/ABI: SystemV (0x0)
+# FBSD64-NEXT:   OS/ABI: FreeBSD (0x9)
 # RV64-NEXT:     ABIVersion: 0
----------------
luismarques wrote:
> Ditto.
-NEXT suffix interacts across prefixes 


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D95755/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D95755