> On Dec 7, 2018, at 8:10 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > “Unknown” is a perfectly fine value for the os though, and I’m not suggesting > to change that. > > My point is simply that Jason’s situation (baremetal) is one that is not even > expressible by the Triple syntax. As long as there’s some enum value that > describes the situation (of which unknown is a valid choice), the problem > goes away.
We current use a "specified unknown" (where enum and string are unknown) to mean "none", which is what we use to say specify bare metal (no OS). I am happy to change that though. If we change this, then a few people's workflows might have to change where they used to say "armv7-apple-unknown" to "armv7-apple-none". Not a big deal since not many people are using LLDB for bare board debugging right now, but something we will need to document. Greg > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 8:06 AM <ted.woodw...@codeaurora.org > <mailto:ted.woodw...@codeaurora.org>> wrote: > We use 2 triples for Hexagon: > > hexagon-unknown-elf (which becomes hexagon-unknown-unknown-elf internally), > and hexagon-unknown-linux. > > > > We follow the Linux standard and add in magic to the elf to identify it as a > Linux binary. But in the hexagon-unknown-elf case we have no way to > distinguish between standalone (no OS, running on our simulator) or QuRT > (proprietary OS, could be running on hardware or simulator). In fact, the > same shared library that has no OS calls (just standard library calls that go > into the appropriate .so) could run under either one. > > > > I think requiring a value for every OS would be a non-starter for us. > > > > -- > > Ted Woodward > > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux > Foundation Collaborative Project > > > > From: lldb-dev <lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org > <mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org>> On Behalf Of Zachary Turner via > lldb-dev > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 4:38 AM > To: Pavel Labath <pa...@labath.sk <mailto:pa...@labath.sk>> > Cc: LLDB <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>> > Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] When should ArchSpecs match? > > > > We can already say that with OSType::Unknown. That’s different than “i know > that no OS exists” > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 12:00 AM Pavel Labath <pa...@labath.sk > <mailto:pa...@labath.sk>> wrote: > > On 07/12/2018 01:22, Jason Molenda via lldb-dev wrote: > > Oh sorry I missed that. Yes, I think a value added to the OSType for NoOS > > or something would work. We need to standardize on a textual > > representation for this in a triple string as well, like 'none'. Then with > > arm64-- and arm64-*-* as UnknownVendor + UnknownOS we can have these marked > > as "compatible" with any other value in the case Adrian is looking at. > > > > > > Sounds good to me. > > As another data point, it is usually impossible to tell from looking at > an ELF file which os it is intended to run on. You can tell the > architecture because it's right in the elf header, but that's about it. > Some OSs get around this by adding a special section like > .this.is.an.android.binary, but not all of them. So in general, we need > to be able to say "I have no idea which OS is this binary intended for". > > pl > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
