> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Sanders > Sent: 03 December 2014 17:23 > To: 'Tom Stellard'; Stellard, Thomas; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Deleted Mips symbols in the 3.5 branch > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tom Stellard [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: 03 December 2014 16:25 > > To: Daniel Sanders; Stellard, Thomas; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Deleted Mips symbols in the 3.5 branch > > > > On 12/03/2014 05:11 AM, Daniel Sanders wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Tom Stellard [mailto:[email protected]] > > >> Sent: 03 December 2014 02:16 > > >> To: Daniel Sanders; Stellard, Thomas; [email protected] > > >> Subject: Re: Deleted Mips symbols in the 3.5 branch > > >> > > >> On 12/02/2014 05:54 PM, Daniel Sanders wrote: > > >>> I could be completely off-track here, but my initial attempts at using > abi- > > >> compliance-checker on a subset of the public headers (everything in > > >> $prefix/include/llvm/Target, and > > >> $prefix/include/llvm/ExecutionEngine/ExecutionEngine.h) haven't > > reported > > >> anything other than --prefix related differences and this got me > thinking. > > >>> > > >>> We only need to worry about symbols that the user can directly access > > >> from the definitions in the public (installed) headers and not the whole > > >> symbol table, don't we? These symbols are in the symbol table for the > > >> shared library, but as far as I can tell there is no definition in the > > >> public > > >> headers that could enable a user to directly reference anything from > > >> $srcdir/lib/Target/Mips (not even the create* functions). > > >>> > > >> > > >> This is a good point, and I think you are right about this. I have been > > >> using the ABI checker with -objects-only so it wasn't considering the > > >> headers at all. I think we are probably OK then with these deleted > > symbols > > >> for now, thanks for looking into this and sorry you had to be the guinea > > pig. > > >> > > > > > > No problem. I need to learn quite a lot of the implementation detail for > C++ > > anyway and this has been very helpful for that. > > > > > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > It took one hour and 8 GBs of memory, but I got the ABI checker working > > with headers. > > It looks like there is one patch that breaks the ABI: r223018 In > > include/llvm/CodeGen/CallingConvLower, this commits adds new > members > > to the middle of > > enum LocInfo, which changes the values of some existing members. The > > new members should > > be added to the end. Would you be able to fix this? > > > > Thanks, > > Tom > > Fixed in r223242.
Nearly forgot to ask. Should I do this for the trunk too? _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
