- User Since
- Oct 18 2019, 11:34 AM (77 w, 5 d)
Jan 31 2021
I can see it both ways - I like when CMake tells me if a configuration is not supported - but on the other hand this is probably a pretty easy to spot in the compiler error what's wrong. I guess the section could be replaced with actually trying to compile a snippet with TryCompile with the sanitizer flag instead and replace the specific flag check.
Jan 29 2021
Jan 28 2021
Oct 13 2020
Oct 12 2020
Added documentation in the rst file. Anyone with commit access - feel free to commit this for me.
Can this be merged? @rupprecht ?
Oct 10 2020
Oct 9 2020
Hey - I am keen on getting this done. Can we come to a consensus on what the best way is to handle this?
Oct 6 2020
I don't have a strong opinion on what's best - both will solve my problem, if people think it would be better to use a regex I can rework the patch to do that (as long as there is a good regex implementation in LLVM I can use already).
Oct 5 2020
A compile time option sounds good, per target configuration sounds even better!
Oct 4 2020
maked comments as done
- made sure one call is using -- and one is using -
- line breaks fix
Oct 3 2020
The test fails doesn't seem related. But let me know if anyone thinks otherwise.
Marked comments as done.
Fixed all review feedback and added tests.
Oct 1 2020
Jun 8 2020
Jun 3 2020
Thanks - I'll look into a fix.
May 28 2020
@mstorsjo mind landing this for me as well?
May 24 2020
Updated with parenthesis - feel free to commit if it looks good to you. Same as before Tobias Hieta firstname.lastname@example.org.
Sounds good - I'll close this one and open three new ones.
I am planning to revise this one now that we have thinlto-cache-dir option landed here are my plans:
"Tobias Hieta <email@example.com>" thanks!
May 23 2020
Could you commit this for me Martin? I don't have access yet.
May 22 2020
Apr 18 2020
Thanks guys - I don't have commit access. So could anyone of you commit this? Please use my email address firstname.lastname@example.org if you commit as another author.
Apr 17 2020
@psmith This worked! All patches is now passing with the latest diff. I did a quick rebase as well - no conflicts.
This applies the latest patch from @psmith which means that all the tests now passes! 🎉
Apr 16 2020
I have applied @psmith changes to arm-branch-rangethunk.s and reworked arm-branch.s to work with the changes above.
we are now only down to two failing tests:
Apr 15 2020
Oh I see that there are some files I forgot to update the comments to have /// - I'll revisit them later this week.
This adjusts the comments as suggested by @psmith and addresses all the tests except the following three:
Apr 12 2020
Apr 9 2020
I have started working on the tests - I have 17 left to do - but since the diff is going to be big I thought I wanted to upload this for now and start collecting feedback to make sure I am doing the right things here.
Apr 8 2020
Thanks for handling this!
Apr 7 2020
A small ping here.
Apr 3 2020
So it sounds like I could go ahead and start changing the tests to match this? I can get to it during the weekend I hope. I anyone have a huge objection to this getting merged - let me know asap.
@srhines Thanks for your reply! Would it be enough for you guys to expand this block in clang https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Linux.cpp#L256 for Android's usage? Or would a change in lld make more sense?
Apr 2 2020
Oct 31 2019
Thanks everyone! It was a great learning experience getting this patch in and learning more about building/testing LLVM!
Oct 30 2019
Can someone please commit this for me if everyone is happy with it now?
Updated the tests with @jhenderson comments.
Fixed all outstanding comments with documentation, test cases and linking to the correct upstream bug.
Oct 28 2019
I totally defer to you guys on if this is something you want to accept or not. We are now patching our own toolchain with this patch to not create bad binaries. If I where to make a case for accepting this patch it would be something like:
Oct 24 2019
@rupprecht - Thanks! I have addressed the comments and uploaded a new rev. Hope I did it correctly. I don't have commit access - if you could commit it for me it would be great. I might have other patches in the future (looking at you MingW driver) but I'll cross that bridge then.
This revision should address all the comments in the previous revision. Comments are updated, testing --strip-all-gnu and documentation changes. Let me know if you have additional comments.
Oct 21 2019
Thanks everyone for the feedback. I was meeting up with our QA team this week and they said that they seen the issue with these binaries on a much larger array of devices than I initially thought. This is not a bug in upstream GLIBC - this is a bug in debian/ubuntu versions that patch glibc to specifically check for SHT_ARM_ATTRIBUTES. We tested with all debian based NAS devices we had and saw the same issue. We even tested with raspbian on raspberry pi and this also contains the issue.