AaronBallman wrote:
> Note that Halide has removed its dependency on the le32/le64 targets as of
> [halide/Halide#8344](https://github.com/halide/Halide/pull/8344).
Thank you for letting us know!
Does anyone know of any reasons we should not revert the revert (so le32/le64
is removed in Clang
steven-johnson wrote:
Note that Halide has removed its dependency on the le32/le64 targets as of
https://github.com/halide/Halide/pull/8344.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98497
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https:
efriedma-quic wrote:
> I was under the impression those bits were still needed for Chromium. CC
> @dschuff
Oh, clang/lib/CodeGen/Targets/PNaCl.cpp is still live for mipsel-nacl target
triple. Which we also have zero tests for, but I guess that's a separate issue.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm
AaronBallman wrote:
d3f8105c65046173e20c4c59394b4a7f1bbe7627 restores the targets, thank you all
for the discussion!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98497
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin
AaronBallman wrote:
> After some initial experiments, it looks unlikely that a quick fix is
> possible on our side. May I suggest a revert with a (say) 30-day expiration
> date? That should give us enough time to come up with a fix on our side
> (which will actually be a drop-other-work-and-fi
steven-johnson wrote:
After some initial experiments, it looks unlikely that a quick fix is possible
on our side. May I suggest a revert with a (say) 30-day expiration date? That
should give us enough time to come up with a fix on our side (which will
actually be a drop-other-work-and-fix-it a
AaronBallman wrote:
> It looks like the removal missed a few bits: PNaClABIBuiltinVaList and
> clang/lib/CodeGen/Targets/PNaCl.cpp weren't removed.
I was under the impression those bits were still needed for Chromium. CC
@dschuff
> > Unfortunately, this utterly breaks Halide, which was in fa
steven-johnson wrote:
> We're trying wasm now.
This looked promising in our GitHub tests, but for reasons that aren't clear
(yet), ~everything compiled this way inside google3 resulted in linker errors
(missing symbols).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98497
abadams wrote:
We were advised to use the pnacl targets at the time the code was written.
We're trying wasm now.
The IR can be generic if you use a subset of C that excludes all the things
that vary across the targets you care about. For cases we really can't avoid it
(e.g. win32 calling con
efriedma-quic wrote:
There is no such thing as "generic" LLVM IR, in general: so many
target-specific aspects of C have to be directly encoded into the IR, so
there's no way to actually make it generic. In this respect, the "le32/le64"
targets aren't really any more generic than any other tar
abadams wrote:
Our actual need is for a stable and user-friendly way to write fragments of
mostly-target-agnostic llvm IR.
We concat these with other fragments and give it an actual target triple later.
This lets us assemble a target-specific Halide runtime dynamically by mixing
and matching
MaskRay wrote:
It seems that Halide (https://github.com/halide/Halide/pull/5934), an important
user, still needs generic 32-bit 64-bit Clang targets.
The removed le32/le64 targets fulfilled this need.
(This change broke my internal users. Sorry that I did not realize that
Halide#5934 was closed
efriedma-quic wrote:
It looks like the removal missed a few bits: PNaClABIBuiltinVaList and
clang/lib/CodeGen/Targets/PNaCl.cpp weren't removed.
> Unfortunately, this utterly breaks Halide, which was in fact relying on both
> of these targets.
We can temporarily revert this, but we aren't goi
steven-johnson wrote:
> LGTM! That partial Le32/Leb64 restore was to give Halide some time.
I understand that you want these gone, but the fact of the matter is that
Halide isn't ready for this change, and so the next integrate of LLVM into
google3 will break the world. We urgently need these
steven-johnson wrote:
Unfortunately, this utterly breaks Halide, which was in fact relying on both of
these targets.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98497
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `clang-armv8-quick` running
on `linaro-clang-armv8-quick` while building `clang,llvm` at step 5 "ninja
check 1".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/154/builds/1300
Here is the relevant pie
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `clang-aarch64-quick`
running on `linaro-clang-aarch64-quick` while building `clang,llvm` at step 5
"ninja check 1".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/65/builds/1309
Here is the relevant
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `llvm-clang-x86_64-sie-win`
running on `sie-win-worker` while building `clang,llvm` at step 7
"test-build-unified-tree-check-all".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/46/builds/1534
Here is
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder
`llvm-clang-x86_64-sie-ubuntu-fast` running on `sie-linux-worker` while
building `clang,llvm` at step 6 "test-build-unified-tree-check-all".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/144/builds/21
https://github.com/AaronBallman closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98497
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/MaskRay approved this pull request.
LGTM! That partial Le32/Leb64 restore was to give Halide some time.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98497
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/c
AaronBallman wrote:
Precommit CI failure on Windows appears to be unrelated:
```
_bk;t=1720718143606 TEST 'lld :: ELF/basic-sparcv9.s'
FAILED
_bk;t=1720718143606Exit Code: 1
_bk;t=1720718143606
_bk;t=1720718143606Command Output (stdout):
_bk;t=17
@@ -842,8 +842,8 @@ class LLVM_LIBRARY_VISIBILITY NaClTargetInfo : public
OSTargetInfo {
} else if (Triple.getArch() == llvm::Triple::mipsel) {
// Handled on mips' setDataLayout.
} else {
- assert(Triple.getArch() == llvm::Triple::le32);
- this->resetDa
@@ -842,8 +842,8 @@ class LLVM_LIBRARY_VISIBILITY NaClTargetInfo : public
OSTargetInfo {
} else if (Triple.getArch() == llvm::Triple::mipsel) {
// Handled on mips' setDataLayout.
} else {
- assert(Triple.getArch() == llvm::Triple::le32);
- this->resetDa
24 matches
Mail list logo
