Update Xtensa target data layouts to match upstream LLVM#157056
Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
|
These commits modify compiler targets. |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Contributor
|
Just for the paper trail, can you motivate this change a bit more in the PR description? |
folkertdev
approved these changes
May 28, 2026
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Currently LLVM gives this error
error: data-layout for target `xtensa-esp32-none-elf`, `e-m:e-p:32:32-v1:8:8-i64:64-i128:128-n32`, differs from LLVM target's `xtensa-none-elf` default layout, `e-m:e-p:32:32-i8:8:32-i16:16:32-i64:64-n32`error: data-layout for target `xtensa-esp32-none-elf`, `e-m:e-p:32:32-v1:8:8-i64:64-i128:128-n32`, differs from LLVM target's `xtensa-none-elf` default layout, `e-m:e-p:32:32-i8:8:32-i16:16:32-i64:64-n32`
r=me when CI is green
Contributor
Author
|
@bors r=folkertdev |
Contributor
|
@MabezDev: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: not in review users |
Contributor
|
@bors r+ rollup |
Contributor
rust-bors
Bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 28, 2026
…uwer Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - #157046 (file locking: clarify that double-locking is underspecified) - #156401 (rustdoc: deterministic sorting for `doc_cfg` badges) - #156746 (cg_llvm: Use `LLVMDIBuilderCreateEnumeratorOfArbitraryPrecision`) - #156889 (Suggest function-local constructors without enclosing function path) - #157012 (Fix missing note of escaping `{` for braces including whitespaces) - #157056 (Update Xtensa target data layouts to match upstream LLVM) - #157062 (Add link to RFMF Sponsors page)
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 28, 2026
Rollup merge of #157056 - esp-rs:update-xtensa-datalayout, r=folkertdev Update Xtensa target data layouts to match upstream LLVM Born from #156568 (comment). We've been using a fork to distribute compiler builds that support the Xtensa arch whilst we're upstreaming. At a certain point we received some changes on our fork, which haven't been upstreamed, which I now to believe to be a mistake - therefore I'm reverting to the upstream LLVM datalayout. r? @folkertdev
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Born from #156568 (comment).
We've been using a fork to distribute compiler builds that support the Xtensa arch whilst we're upstreaming. At a certain point we received some changes on our fork, which haven't been upstreamed, which I now to believe to be a mistake - therefore I'm reverting to the upstream LLVM datalayout.
r? @folkertdev