Re: clang 3.9.0 buildkernel on old powerpc64's vs. trying to build hwpmc_e500.o and the like. . .

A context point that I forgot to mention. . . I had to use WERROR= in order for buildkernel to complete under clang 3.9.0 . Otherwise it stopped based on: converts between pointers to integer types with different sign [-Werror,-Wpointer-sign] === Mark Millard markmi at dsl-only.net On

[Bug 214904] head -r309179 clang 3.9.0 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 buildkernel stops for: rejected assembler notation in hwpmc_e500.c

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214904 Mark Millard changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|head -r309179 clang 3.9.0 |head -r309179

[Bug 214904] head -r309179 clang 3.9.0 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 cross-built buildkernel stops for: rejected assembler notation

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214904 --- Comment #2 from Mark Millard --- Created attachment 177812 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=177812=edit patch for contrib/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCInstrInfo.td Roman Divacky provided the

Re: clang 3.9.0 buildkernel on old powerpc64's vs. trying to build hwpmc_e500.o and the like. . .

[Top post noting a systematic stupid typo of mine.] I keep typing 2.47 instead of 2.27 for devel/binutils and devel/powerpc64-binutils . === Mark Millard markmi at dsl-only.net On 2016-Dec-8, at 3:01 PM, Mark Millard wrote: On 2016-Dec-8, at 2:14 PM, Roman Divacky

Re: clang 3.9.0 buildkernel on old powerpc64's vs. trying to build hwpmc_e500.o and the like. . .

On 2016-Dec-8, at 2:14 PM, Roman Divacky wrote: > I believe the code comes from sys/powerpc/aim/locore64.S and if you compare > the different values from the disssembly with the .S code you can see > it's __tocbase and TOC_REF(). > > I wonder if the assembly has the

Re: clang 3.9.0 buildkernel on old powerpc64's vs. trying to build hwpmc_e500.o and the like. . .

I believe the code comes from sys/powerpc/aim/locore64.S and if you compare the different values from the disssembly with the .S code you can see it's __tocbase and TOC_REF(). I wonder if the assembly has the -mminimal-toc knowledge hardcoded in somehow. I am not sure what expectations the

Re: clang 3.9.0 buildkernel on old powerpc64's vs. trying to build hwpmc_e500.o and the like. . .

[I have dropped the patch related information and just have failing-boot related information here.] On 2016-Dec-8, at 10:55 AM, Roman Divacky wrote: > Can you try to investigate why it dies? I am not convinced -mminimal-toc > would result in a boot failure. I think the kernel would fail to

Re: clang 3.9.0 buildkernel on old powerpc64's vs. trying to build hwpmc_e500.o and the like. . .

Can you try to investigate why it dies? I am not convinced -mminimal-toc would result in a boot failure. I think the kernel would fail to link. On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:52:47PM -0800, Mark Millard wrote: > Top post of a FYI [head -r309656 powerpc64 context]: > > I commented out the one