adalava added a comment. In D71600#1867135 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71600#1867135>, @efriedma wrote:
> For the clang change, we should do something like D72579 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72579>, not explicitly check for a specific target > in target-independent code. right, I'll retest everything using D72579 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72579>. > For compiler-rt, are you really disabling COMPILER_RT_EXCLUDE_ATOMIC_BUILTIN? > Are you sure you understand the implications of that? I didn't understood "disable COMPILER_RT_EXCLUDE_ATOMIC_BUILTIN", it's not intentional. If it's the change around atomic.c:131, what I expect is make IS_LOCK_FREE_8 return false. I don't want it to make to __c11_atomic_is_lock_free(8) as it generates code that should be linked with a libatomic at run time. > I'm also curious: what part of clang is calling __atomic_is_lock_free? I > can't find any code in LLVM that calls it. hm, I'm afraid I was not clear in this. When generating FreeBSD images, the libc cross-compiled by unpatched clang gets an entry to external call to __c11_atomic_is_lock_free(). Then, in the resulting system (new sysroot) I get this problem (libatomic dependency) when trying to build clang itself. While testing with D72579 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72579> I'll try reproduce it again and will post more info here since I don't have the build logs anymore (I investigated it ~6 months ago). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71600/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71600 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
