-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.2k
Found one more delta to unbreak build for z/os #82789
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
perry-ca
wants to merge
11
commits into
llvm:main
Choose a base branch
from
perry-ca:perry/quad-non-tf-mode
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 10 commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
66989a1
fix build for z/os
perry-ca 1996816
Merge branch 'llvm:main' into perry/quad-non-tf-mode
perry-ca 6c45d60
Fix files so div & mult are included for z/OS and excluded for 32-bit…
perry-ca eb3bd1b
Merge branch 'llvm:main' into perry/quad-non-tf-mode
perry-ca b151da0
reorg some more so sparc doesn't get error when CRT_HAS_TF_MODE isn't…
perry-ca e4192b2
Merge branch 'main' into perry/quad-non-tf-mode
perry-ca 6c8c0ab
Merge branch 'llvm:main' into perry/quad-non-tf-mode
perry-ca 4815fdc
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into perry/quad-non-tf-mode
perry-ca b3bcc70
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into perry/quad-non-tf-mode
perry-ca fef5e08
simplify conditional code for QUAD
perry-ca 5e87718
Revert "simplify conditional code for QUAD"
perry-ca File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't quite understand this conditional. Why do we need to check
COMPILER_RT_DEFAULT_TARGET_ARCH?Also is the sparcv9 build 32-bit? If not could this be simplified to:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is something I need @rorth feedback on. I don't know enough about the versions of sparc and what's supported or not. From the discussions, it sounded like "sparc" is 32-bit and the other
sparc*are 64-bit.I think you are right. Hopefully Rainer, provides feedback too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ping @rorth . I think this is the only open issue blocking this from being merged.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've meanwhile tried 2-stage builds on both
sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11andsparc64-unknown-linux-gnu, each starting fromgcc-14andclang-19. There were no failures.However, the above is as wrong as it can get: on both Solaris/sparcv9 and Linux/sparc64 there were no
TFfilescompiled any longer, neither
sparcnorsparcv9. For one, AFAICSMATCHESisn't anchored, so it matches all ofsparc,sparcv9, andsparc64. Besides, the concrete default SPARC target arch is completely irrelevant here: both a 64-bit-default compiler and a32-bit-default compiler can produce both 32 and 64-bit objects.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @rorth. Can you provide a solution for this part that does what you need.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not right now. I seriously think we need to take two steps back first. So far, you haven't provided some quite crucial information:
main?Right now, I can't help but feel that we've poking in the dark for months without any real progress or even understanding what the problem is. This is extremely tiring: I at least have long run out of energy, time, and patience about this patch. The upcoming releases of binutils 2.44, GCC 15, and LLVM 20 don't help in the slightest for this.
An added problem is the fact that to the best of my knowledge there's no public s390x system where one could try things for your target. OTOH, there's a Solaris/sparcv9 system in the cfarm that is perfectly capable of building and testing LLVM. I don't even know if there's any s390x ABI document available, so knowing the system's properties is all but impossible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@arichardson has reviewed this and approves the change. In this case the changes recently made to divtc3.c and multc3.c had a bad assumption connecting native 128-bit long double support to 128-bit int support. That is not generally correct. I could simply reverse that but I know that will break sparc hence the change to this file.
The answers to the other questions are in previous PRs. I'll add the answers in the description of this one to save searching.