Hi
On 5/21/23 06:59, Sam Edwards wrote:
On 5/20/23 22:26, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
Hello Sam,
Hi Heinrich! Good to hear from you.
I guess the documentation and the CI testing would also have to be adjusted.
Ah, yeah, those are going to be big things for me to look at when this series
starts to mature out of the RFC phase. CI is definitely important so that the
hard-won compatibility doesn't just decay away. :)
What about non-ARM architectures?
If there's a groundswell of demand for building U-Boot on LLVM, I'd be willing
to collaborate with others on getting the other architectures up to parity with
GNU. But since the linker scripts, relocation thunks, sections, and whatnot are
all arch-specific, I'm only focusing on ARM for now (which is both the arch I
need and one of the more common ones).
Is there a particular arch you'd like to see next? It seems everything U-Boot
supports is supported by LLVM, except for Microblaze, NIOS2, and SH.
Could you, please, describe how built with lld so that reviewers can test it.
I've been building with:
nice make CC='clang --target=armv7l-none-eabi' \
LTO_FINAL_LDFLAGS=-fuse-ld=lld LD=ld.lld OBJCOPY=llvm-objcopy
...though mostly at this stage I'm just hoping for folks to confirm that this
patchset causes no regressions in their existing GNU environments. (Feedback
from LLVM-land would be appreciated nonetheless, though!!!)
Dockerfile in repo as I see is using 3 toolchain categories.
1. llvm deb repo
2. kernel.org
3. others - xtensa/arc
For CI loop you should pretty much provide a way how to get toolchain.
That's why would be good to figure it out and then I am happy to take a look at
changed you have done for Zynq.
Definitely nice to see this happening and I expect more warnings will be visible
and they should be fixed.
Thanks,
Michal
