Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:07:19 +0100
From: Peter Smith <>
To: Lei Zhang <>
Cc: Rafael EspĂ­ndola <>, 
	llvm-commits <>,,, cfe-commits cfe <>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-musl] Re: Add support for musl-libc on Linux

Hello Lei,

The changes to llvm and clang look ok to me. I've got some suggestions
for testing.

For the clang patch, it looks like there isn't a test to check that
musleabihf implies hard floating point. It looks like
Driver/arm-mfpu.c CHECK-HF might be a good candidate to add a test.

For the llvm patch

I think you should be able to find a test that checks the behaviour of
GNUEABI and GNUEABIHF for each of the properties that you've added
Subtarget->isTargetMuslAEABI() to or equivalent. It would be useful to
add a test case for MUSLEABI and/or MUSLEABIHF. For example in the
RTLIB case there are a large number of tests that check whether the
correct __aeabi_ function is called.

Some files I came across (there are many more) that might be a good
place to check that musleabi and musleabihf behaves like gnueabi and
CodeGen/ARM/fp16.ll (hard-float for HF)


On 21 June 2016 at 14:36, Lei Zhang <> wrote:
> 2016-06-20 19:05 GMT+08:00 Lei Zhang <>:
>> 2016-06-18 8:52 GMT+08:00 Rafael EspĂ­ndola <>:
>>> There are probably a few more places that need to be patched.
>>> In particular, take a look at lib/Target/ARM. There are things like
>>> computeTargetABI and isTargetHardFloat that probably need to be
>>> updated (and tested).
>> Any hints how to test the new changes? I guess merely checking clang's
>> output like the previous test cases won't suffice this time.
> Here're the refined patches. Please let me know if the test cases
> aren't complete.
> Thanks,
> Lei

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.