[llvmlinux] What's the status of llvm linux for X86_64?

[Marcelo Sousa]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Behan Webster <behanw at converseincode.com>wrote:

>  On 13-04-29 01:53 PM, Marcelo Sousa wrote:
>
> Hi again,
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Behan Webster <behanw at converseincode.com>wrote:
>
>> On 13-04-29 12:16 PM, Marcelo Sousa wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> Can someone elaborate on what's the status of the project for X86_64?
>>>
>>  It builds, boots and works in our limited testing so far.
>>
>>
>>  I'm interested in applying my static analysis tools that I developed for
>>> LLVM IR to the Linux Kernel.
>>>
>>  Sounds great!
>>
>>
>>  However, it's clear that clang is not there yet to cope with Kernel code.
>>>
>>  It's not that simple. The kernel code does a number of things which are
>> very gcc-ish and in some cases break the C standards. We largely patch
>> around those problems. The work is upstreaming fixes to the kernel, or
>> upstreaming code to LLVM to add compatibility. This is ongoing work.
>
>
>  Where can I read more about which things the kernel is doing that are
> sketchy in this context?
>
> There is no one good place to look; things change too fast. The website is
> the most up-to-date written resource (though it is a little behind). The
> patches are even more up-to-date. The meetings are the best place to find
> out about these topics.
>
>
>
>>  Are you applying patches at which level: clang, Kernel or both?
>>>
>>  Both code bases. We have a few more things we want to upstream to
>> Clang/LLVM, but it will mostly work fine for clang 3.3 when released. There
>> is a lot more to upstream to the kernel still (mostly because without a
>> clang which works, upstreaming code to the kernel which they can't test is
>> a non-starter)
>
>
> Can you elaborate on which changes to what? Is this documented somewhere?
> I need to do some sanity check there to praise soundness of my tools.
>
> My appologies, but the best place to see what needs changing is to look at
> the patches (we are still working on commenting them better). We'll be
> discussing a lot more about this at this week's meeting.
>
>
>     Some weeks ago I was able to generate LLVM IR for vexpress, but I
>>> need a more functional infrastructure that can work for x86 and several
>>> version of the Kernel. Is this at all possible at the moment?
>>>
>>  Give x86_64 a try.
>>
>> Try building it in our build system. It is the easiest way to work with
>> all of these updates (and the easiest to try new code we add).
>>
>>
>>  I'm willing to spend time coding and fixing issues, so please feel free
>>> to point me around. Furthermore, when will you have the next meeting?
>>>
>>  The meetings are scheduled with doodle polls then announced on this
>> mailing list. You should have seen the latest meeting listed here this past
>> Friday. Here it is again for your convenience: :)
>>
>> Thursday, May 2 at 3pm UTC (11AM EST) on Google Hangouts. Make sure you
>> circle me on G+ so I can add you to the call.
>>
>> We hope to see you there!
>>
>
>  See you there!
>
> Excellent!
>

Is there is a way to compile X86_64 with a local version of llvm and clang?
The documentation on the website seems outdated. What's the relevance of
the configurations in the build process?

Regards,
Marcelo


>
>
> Behan
>
> --
> Behan Websterbehanw at converseincode.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/llvmlinux/attachments/20130429/e74396a1/attachment-0001.html>