Leonardo Santagada via llvm-dev
2018-Jan-25 17:49 UTC
[llvm-dev] [lldb-dev] Trying out lld to link windows binaries (using msvc as a compiler)
I did reorder my sections, so that .debug$H is in the correct place, but now I get some errors on dubplicate symbols, I created a folder with examples: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nmvzi44pi0boe76/AAA0f47O5PCJ9JiUc6wVuwBra?dl=0 t.obj is generated by vs 2015 and it links fine with lld-link.exe, but tout.obj gives this errors: lld-link.exe /DEBUG:GHASH tout.obj LLD-LINK.EXE: error: duplicate symbol: __local_stdio_printf_options in tout.obj and in LIBCMT.lib(default_local_stdio_options.obj) LLD-LINK.EXE: error: duplicate symbol: __local_stdio_printf_options in tout.obj and in libvcruntime.lib(undname.obj) I'm using PEView from http://wjradburn.com/software/ to look at the files and can't see anything wrong, except some valid differences in the offsets being used for the data (so pointer to data is different between them). I will look into yaml2obj now to see if I see anything else weird going on. On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:> I'm pretty confident that cl is not putting anything strange in the > .debug$T sections. We've done a lot of testing and never seen anything > except CodeView type records in a .debug$T. My hunch is that your objcopy > patch is probably not doing the right thing in one or more of the section > headers, and this is confusing the linker. > > One idea might be to build a simple object file with clang-cl but without > the magic -mllvm -emit-codeview-ghash-section, then run your llvm-objcopy > on it. Then build the same object file passing -mllvm > -emit-codeview-ghash-section. Then run obj2yaml on both and diff the > results. They should be byte-for-byte identical. That should give you a > clue about if objcopy is doing something wrong. > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:21 AM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Don't worry, I definetly want to perfect this to generate legal obj >> files, this is just to speed up testing. >> >> Now after patching all the obj files I get this errors when linking a >> small part of our code base (msvc 2017 15.5.3, lld and llvm-objcopy 7.0.0): >> lld-link.exe : error : relocation against symbol in discarded section: >> $LN8 >> lld-link.exe : error : relocation against symbol in discarded section: >> $LN43 >> lld-link.exe : error : relocation against symbol in discarded section: >> $LN37 >> >> I'm starting to guess that cl.exe might be putting some random comdat or >> other discardable symbols in the .debug$T and clang doesn't? I will try to >> debug this and see what more I can uncover. >> >> Linking works perfectly without my llvm-objcopy pass to add .debug$H? >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 1:53 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> It might not influence LLD, but at the same time we don't want to >>> upstream something that is producing technically illegal COFF files. Also >>> good to hear about the planned changes to your header files. Looking >>> forward to hearing about your experiences with clang-cl. >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:41 AM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I finally got my first .obj file patched with .debug$H to look somewhat >>>> right. I added the new section at the end of the file so I don't have to >>>> recalculate all sections (although now I probably could position it in the >>>> middle, knowing that each section is: SizeOfRawData + (last.Header.NumberOfRelocations >>>> * (4+4+2)) and the $H needs to come right after $T in the file). That >>>> although illegal based on the coff specs doesn't seem its going to >>>> influence lld. >>>> >>>> Also we talked and we are probably going to do something similar to a >>>> bunch of windows defines and a check for our own define (to guarantee that >>>> no one imported windows.h before win32.h) and drop the namespace and the >>>> conflicting names. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That's very possible that a 3rd party indirect header include is >>>>> involved. One idea might be like I suggested where you #define _WINDOWS_ >>>>> in win32.h and guarantee that it's always included first. Then those other >>>>> headers won't be able to #include <windows.h>. but it will probably >>>>> greatly expand the amount of stuff you have to add to win32.h, as you will >>>>> probably find some callers of functions that aren't yet in your win32.h >>>>> that you'd have to add. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:28 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ok some information was lost on getting this example to you, I'm >>>>>> sorry for not being clear. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have a huge code base, let's say 90% of it doesn't include either >>>>>> header, 9% include win32.h and 1% includes both, I will try to discover >>>>>> why, but my guess is they include both a third party that includes >>>>>> windows.h and some of our libs that use win32.h. >>>>>> >>>>>> I will try to fully understand this tomorrow. >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess clang will not implement this ever so finishing the object >>>>>> copier is the best solution until all code is ported to clang. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 23 Jan 2018 00:02, "Zachary Turner" <zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> You said win32.h doesn't include windows.h, but main.cpp does. So >>>>>>> what's the disadvantage of just including it in win32.h anyway, since it's >>>>>>> already going to be in every translation unit? (Unless you didn't mean to >>>>>>> #include it in main.cpp) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess all I can do is warn you how bad of an idea this is. For >>>>>>> starters, I already found a bug in your code ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> // stdint.h >>>>>>> typedef int int32_t; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> // winnt.h >>>>>>> typedef long LONG; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> // windef.h >>>>>>> typedef struct tagPOINT >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> LONG x; // long x >>>>>>> LONG y; // long y >>>>>>> } POINT, *PPOINT, NEAR *NPPOINT, FAR *LPPOINT; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> // win32.h >>>>>>> typedef int32_t LONG; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> struct POINT >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> LONG x; // int x >>>>>>> LONG y; // int y >>>>>>> }; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So POINT is defined two different ways. In your minimal interface, >>>>>>> it's declared as 2 int32's, which are int. In the actual Windows header >>>>>>> files, it's declared as 2 longs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This might seem like a unimportant bug since int and long are the >>>>>>> same size, but int and long also mangle differently and affect overload >>>>>>> resolution, so you could have weird linker errors or call the wrong >>>>>>> function overload. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Plus, it illustrates the fact that this struct *actually is* a >>>>>>> different type from the one in the windows header. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You said at the end that you never intentionally import win32.h and >>>>>>> windows.h from the same translation unit. But then in this example you >>>>>>> did. I wonder if you could enforce that by doing this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> // win32.h >>>>>>> #pragma once >>>>>>> >>>>>>> // Error if windows.h was included before us. >>>>>>> #if defined(_WINDOWS_) >>>>>>> #error "You're including win32.h after having already included >>>>>>> windows.h. Don't do this!" >>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>> >>>>>>> // And also make sure windows.h can't get included after us >>>>>>> #define _WINDOWS_ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the record, I tried the test case you linked when windows.h is >>>>>>> not included in main.cpp and it works (but still has the bug about int and >>>>>>> long). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:23 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is super gross, but we copy parts of windows.h because having >>>>>>>> all of it if both gigantic and very very messy. So our win32.h has a couple >>>>>>>> thousands of lines and not 30k+ for windows.h and we try to have zero >>>>>>>> macros. Win32.h doesn't include windows.h so using ::BOOL wouldn't work. We >>>>>>>> don't want to create a namespace, we just want a cleaner interface to >>>>>>>> windows api. The namespace with c linkage is the way to trick cl into >>>>>>>> allowing us to in some files have both windows.h and Win32.h. I really >>>>>>>> don't see any way for us to have this Win32.h without this cl support, so >>>>>>>> maybe we should either put windows.h in a compiled header somewhere and not >>>>>>>> care that it is infecting everything or just have one place we can call to >>>>>>>> clean up after including windows.h (a massive set of undefs). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So using can't work, because we never intentionally import >>>>>>>> windows.h and win32.h on the same translation unit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is pretty gross, honestly :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can't you just use using declarations? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> namespace Win32 { >>>>>>>>> extern "C" { >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> using ::BOOL; >>>>>>>>> using ::LONG; >>>>>>>>> using ::POINT; >>>>>>>>> using ::LPPOINT; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> using ::GetCursorPos; >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This works with clang-cl. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:39 AM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here it is a minimal example, we do this so we don't have to >>>>>>>>>> import the whole windows api everywhere. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://gist.github.com/santagada/7977e929d31c629c4bf18ebb987f6b >>>>>>>>>> e3 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 2:31 AM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Clang-cl maintains compatibility with msvc even in cases where >>>>>>>>>>> it’s non standards compliant (eg 2 phase name lookup), but we try to keep >>>>>>>>>>> these cases few and far between. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To help me understand your case, do you mean you copy windows.h >>>>>>>>>>> and modify it? How does this lead to the same struct being defined twice? >>>>>>>>>>> If i were to write this: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> struct Foo {}; >>>>>>>>>>> struct Foo {}; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Is this a small repro of the issue you’re talking about? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 3:44 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I can totally see something like incremental linking with a >>>>>>>>>>>> simple padding between obj and a mapping file (which can also help with >>>>>>>>>>>> edit and continue, something we also would love to have). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We have another developer doing the port to support clang-cl, >>>>>>>>>>>> but although most of our code also goes trough a version of clang, >>>>>>>>>>>> migrating the rest to clang-cl has been a fight. From what I heard the main >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is that we have a copy of parts of windows.h (so not to bring the >>>>>>>>>>>> awful parts of it like lower case macros) and that totally works on cl, but >>>>>>>>>>>> clang (at least 6.0) complains about two struct/vars with the same name, >>>>>>>>>>>> even though they are exactly the same. Making clang-cl as broken as cl.exe >>>>>>>>>>>> is not an option I suppose? I would love to turn on a flag >>>>>>>>>>>> --accept-that-cl-made-bad-decisions-and-live-with-it and have >>>>>>>>>>>> this at least until this is completely fixed in our code base. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the biggest win with moving to cl would be a better more >>>>>>>>>>>> standards compliant compiler, no 1 minute compiles on heavily templated >>>>>>>>>>>> files and maybe the holy grail of ThinLTO. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 10:56 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 10-15s will be hard without true incremental linking. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> At some point that's going to be the only way to get any >>>>>>>>>>>>> faster, but incremental linking is hard (putting it lightly), and since our >>>>>>>>>>>>> full links are already really fast we think we can get reasonably close to >>>>>>>>>>>>> link.exe incremental speeds with full links. But it's never enough and I >>>>>>>>>>>>> will always want it to be faster, so you may see incremental linking in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> future after we hit a performance wall with full link speed :) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, I'm definitely interested in seeing what kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers you get with /debug:ghash after you get this llvm-objcopy feature >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented. So keep me updated :) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As an aside, have you tried building with clang instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>> cl? If you build with clang you wouldn't even have to do this llvm-objcopy >>>>>>>>>>>>> work, because it would "just work". If you've tried but ran into issues >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm interested in hearing about those too. On the other hand, it's also >>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable to only switch one thing at a time. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 1:34 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we get to < 30s I think most users would prefer it to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> link.exe, just hopping there is still some more optimizations to get closer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ELF linking times (around 10-15s here). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Generally speaking a good rule of thumb is that /debug:ghash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be close to or faster than /debug:fastlink, but with none of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> penalties like slow debug time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:44 PM Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chrome is actually one of my exact benchmark cases. When >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building blink_core.dll and browser_tests.exe, i get anywhere from a 20-40% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in link time. We have some other optimizations in the pipeline >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but not upstream yet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My best time so far (including other optimizations not yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upstream) is 28s on blink_core.dll, compared to 110s with /debug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:28 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You probably don't want to go down the same route that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang goes through to write the object file. If you think yaml2coff is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convoluted, the way clang does it will just give you a headache. There are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple abstractions involved to account for different object file formats >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ELF, COFF, MachO) and output formats (Assembly, binary file). At least >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with yaml2coff >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think your phrase got cut there, but yeah I just found >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AsmPrinter.cpp and it is convoluted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's true that yaml2coff is using the COFFParser >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure, but if you look at the writeCOFF function in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yaml2coff it's pretty bare-metal. The logic you need will be almost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical, except that instead of checking the COFFParser for the various >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields, you'll check the existing COFFObjectFile, which should have similar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing you need to different is when writing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section table and section contents, to insert a new entry. Since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're injecting a section into the middle, you'll also probably need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push back the file pointer of all subsequent sections so that they don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overlap. (e.g. if the original sections are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and you insert >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between 2 and 3, then the original sections 3, 4, and 5 would need to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their FilePointerToRawData offset by the size of the new section). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have the PE/COFF spec open here and I'm happy that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read a bit of it so I actually know what you are talking about... yeah it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't seem too complicated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you need to know what values to put for the other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields in a section header, run `dumpbin /headers foo.obj` on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang-generated object file that has a .debug$H section already (e.g. run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang with -emit-codeview-ghash-section, and look at the properties of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .debug$H section and use the same values). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks I will do that and then also look at how the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CodeView part of the code does it if I can't understand some of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only invariant that needs to be maintained is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section[N]->FilePointerOfRawData == Section[N-1]->FilePointerOfRawData + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section[N-1]->SizeOfRawData >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, that and all the sections need to be on the final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file... But I'm hopeful. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone has times on linking a big project like chrome with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this so that at least I know what kind of performance to expect? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My numbers are something like: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 pdb per obj file: link.exe takes ~15 minutes and 16GB of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ram, lld-link.exe takes 2:30 minutes and ~8GB of ram >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around 10 pdbs per folder: link.exe takes 1 minute and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2-3GB of ram, lld-link.exe takes 1:30 minutes and ~6GB of ram >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faslink: link.exe takes 40 seconds, but then 20 seconds of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loading at the first break point in the debugger and we lost DIA support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for listing symbols. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental: link.exe takes 8 seconds, but it only happens >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when very minor changes happen. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have an non negligible number of symbols used on some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 11:52 AM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the tips, I now have something that reads the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obj file, finds .debug$T sections and global hashes it (proof of concept >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of code). What I can't find is: how does clang itself writes the coff >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files with global hashes, as that might help me understand how to create >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the .debug$H section, how to update the file section count and how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properly write this back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code on yaml2coff is expecting to be working on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yaml COFFParser struct and I'm having quite a bit of a headache turning the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COFFObjectFile into a COFFParser object or compatible... Tomorrow I might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try the very non efficient path of coff2yaml and then yaml2coff with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hashes header... but it seems way too inefficient and convoluted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:02 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:29 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I didn't, I used cl.exe from the visual studio >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toolchain. What I'm proposing is a tool for processing .obj files in COFF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format, reading them and generating the GHASH part. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To make our build faster we use hundreds of unity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build files (.cpp's with a lot of other .cpp's in them aka munch files) but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still have a lot of single .cpp's as well (in total something like 3.4k >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .obj files). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ps: sorry for sending to the wrong list, I was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading about llvm mailing lists and jumped when I saw what I thought was a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lld exclusive list. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A tool like this would be useful, yes. We've talked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it internally as well and agreed it would be useful, we just haven't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prioritized it. If you're interested in submitting a patch along those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lines though, I think it would be a good addition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what the best place for it would be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-readobj and llvm-objdump seem like obvious choices, but they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended to be read-only, so perhaps they wouldn't be a good fit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-pdbutil is kind of a hodgepodge of everything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else related to PDBs and symbols, so I wouldn't be opposed to making a new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subcommand there called "ghash" or something that could process an object >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file and output a new object file with a .debug$H section. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A third option would be to make a new tool for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't htink it would be that hard to write. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're interested in trying to make a patch for this, I can offer some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance on where to look in the code. Otherwise it's something that we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably get to, I'm just not sure when. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would love to write it and contribute it back, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please do tell, I did find some of the code of ghash in lld, but in fuzzy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the llvm codeview part of it and never seen llvm-readobj/objdump or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-pdbutil, but I'm not afraid to look :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Luckily all of the important code is hidden behind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> library calls, and it should already just do the right thing, so I suspect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you won't need to know much about CodeView to do this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think Peter has the right idea about putting this in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-objcopy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can look at one of the existing CopyBinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions there, which currently only work for ELF, but you can just make a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new overload that accepts a COFFObjectFile. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would probably start by iterating over each of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sections (getNumberOfSections / getSectionName) looking for .debug$T and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .debug$H sections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you find a .debug$H section then you can just skip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that object file. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you find a .debug$T but not a .debug$H, then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically do the same thing that LLD does in PDBLinker::mergeDebugT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (create a CVTypeArray, and pass it to GloballyHashedType::hashTypes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That will return an array of hash values. (the format of .debug$H is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> header, followed by the hash values). Then when you're writing the list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sections, just add in the .debug$H section right after the .debug$T section. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently llvm-objcopy only writes ELF files, so it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would need to be taught to write COFF files. We have code to do this in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the yaml2obj utility (specifically, in yaml2coff.cpp in the function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writeCOFF). There may be a way to move this code to somewhere else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (llvm/Object/COFF.h?) so that it can be re-used by both yaml2coff and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-objcopy, but in the worst case scenario you could copy the code and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-write it to work with these new structures. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, you'll probably want to put all of this behind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an option in llvm-objcopy such as -add-codeview-ghash-section >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Leonardo Santagada >> >-- Leonardo Santagada -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180125/7cd63036/attachment-0001.html>
Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
2018-Jan-25 17:50 UTC
[llvm-dev] [lldb-dev] Trying out lld to link windows binaries (using msvc as a compiler)
Yea as long as you compare clang-cl object file with automatically generated .debug$H section against clang-cl object file without .debug$H but added after the fact with llvm-objcopy, that should expose the problem I think when you run obj2yaml on them. On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:49 AM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com> wrote:> I did reorder my sections, so that .debug$H is in the correct place, but > now I get some errors on dubplicate symbols, I created a folder with > examples: > > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nmvzi44pi0boe76/AAA0f47O5PCJ9JiUc6wVuwBra?dl=0 > > t.obj is generated by vs 2015 and it links fine with lld-link.exe, but > tout.obj gives this errors: > > lld-link.exe /DEBUG:GHASH tout.obj > LLD-LINK.EXE: error: duplicate symbol: __local_stdio_printf_options in > tout.obj and in LIBCMT.lib(default_local_stdio_options.obj) > LLD-LINK.EXE: error: duplicate symbol: __local_stdio_printf_options in > tout.obj and in libvcruntime.lib(undname.obj) > > I'm using PEView from http://wjradburn.com/software/ to look at the files > and can't see anything wrong, except some valid differences in the offsets > being used for the data (so pointer to data is different between them). > > I will look into yaml2obj now to see if I see anything else weird going on. > > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> > wrote: > >> I'm pretty confident that cl is not putting anything strange in the >> .debug$T sections. We've done a lot of testing and never seen anything >> except CodeView type records in a .debug$T. My hunch is that your objcopy >> patch is probably not doing the right thing in one or more of the section >> headers, and this is confusing the linker. >> >> One idea might be to build a simple object file with clang-cl but without >> the magic -mllvm -emit-codeview-ghash-section, then run your llvm-objcopy >> on it. Then build the same object file passing -mllvm >> -emit-codeview-ghash-section. Then run obj2yaml on both and diff the >> results. They should be byte-for-byte identical. That should give you a >> clue about if objcopy is doing something wrong. >> >> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:21 AM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Don't worry, I definetly want to perfect this to generate legal obj >>> files, this is just to speed up testing. >>> >>> Now after patching all the obj files I get this errors when linking a >>> small part of our code base (msvc 2017 15.5.3, lld and llvm-objcopy 7.0.0): >>> lld-link.exe : error : relocation against symbol in discarded section: >>> $LN8 >>> lld-link.exe : error : relocation against symbol in discarded section: >>> $LN43 >>> lld-link.exe : error : relocation against symbol in discarded section: >>> $LN37 >>> >>> I'm starting to guess that cl.exe might be putting some random comdat or >>> other discardable symbols in the .debug$T and clang doesn't? I will try to >>> debug this and see what more I can uncover. >>> >>> Linking works perfectly without my llvm-objcopy pass to add .debug$H? >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 1:53 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> It might not influence LLD, but at the same time we don't want to >>>> upstream something that is producing technically illegal COFF files. Also >>>> good to hear about the planned changes to your header files. Looking >>>> forward to hearing about your experiences with clang-cl. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:41 AM Leonardo Santagada < >>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I finally got my first .obj file patched with .debug$H to look >>>>> somewhat right. I added the new section at the end of the file so I don't >>>>> have to recalculate all sections (although now I probably could position it >>>>> in the middle, knowing that each section is: SizeOfRawData + >>>>> (last.Header.NumberOfRelocations * (4+4+2)) and the $H needs to come right >>>>> after $T in the file). That although illegal based on the coff specs >>>>> doesn't seem its going to influence lld. >>>>> >>>>> Also we talked and we are probably going to do something similar to a >>>>> bunch of windows defines and a check for our own define (to guarantee that >>>>> no one imported windows.h before win32.h) and drop the namespace and the >>>>> conflicting names. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> That's very possible that a 3rd party indirect header include is >>>>>> involved. One idea might be like I suggested where you #define _WINDOWS_ >>>>>> in win32.h and guarantee that it's always included first. Then those other >>>>>> headers won't be able to #include <windows.h>. but it will probably >>>>>> greatly expand the amount of stuff you have to add to win32.h, as you will >>>>>> probably find some callers of functions that aren't yet in your win32.h >>>>>> that you'd have to add. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:28 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ok some information was lost on getting this example to you, I'm >>>>>>> sorry for not being clear. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have a huge code base, let's say 90% of it doesn't include either >>>>>>> header, 9% include win32.h and 1% includes both, I will try to discover >>>>>>> why, but my guess is they include both a third party that includes >>>>>>> windows.h and some of our libs that use win32.h. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will try to fully understand this tomorrow. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess clang will not implement this ever so finishing the object >>>>>>> copier is the best solution until all code is ported to clang. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 23 Jan 2018 00:02, "Zachary Turner" <zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You said win32.h doesn't include windows.h, but main.cpp does. So >>>>>>>> what's the disadvantage of just including it in win32.h anyway, since it's >>>>>>>> already going to be in every translation unit? (Unless you didn't mean to >>>>>>>> #include it in main.cpp) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I guess all I can do is warn you how bad of an idea this is. For >>>>>>>> starters, I already found a bug in your code ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> // stdint.h >>>>>>>> typedef int int32_t; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> // winnt.h >>>>>>>> typedef long LONG; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> // windef.h >>>>>>>> typedef struct tagPOINT >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>> LONG x; // long x >>>>>>>> LONG y; // long y >>>>>>>> } POINT, *PPOINT, NEAR *NPPOINT, FAR *LPPOINT; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> // win32.h >>>>>>>> typedef int32_t LONG; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> struct POINT >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>> LONG x; // int x >>>>>>>> LONG y; // int y >>>>>>>> }; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So POINT is defined two different ways. In your minimal interface, >>>>>>>> it's declared as 2 int32's, which are int. In the actual Windows header >>>>>>>> files, it's declared as 2 longs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This might seem like a unimportant bug since int and long are the >>>>>>>> same size, but int and long also mangle differently and affect overload >>>>>>>> resolution, so you could have weird linker errors or call the wrong >>>>>>>> function overload. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Plus, it illustrates the fact that this struct *actually is* a >>>>>>>> different type from the one in the windows header. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You said at the end that you never intentionally import win32.h and >>>>>>>> windows.h from the same translation unit. But then in this example you >>>>>>>> did. I wonder if you could enforce that by doing this: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> // win32.h >>>>>>>> #pragma once >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> // Error if windows.h was included before us. >>>>>>>> #if defined(_WINDOWS_) >>>>>>>> #error "You're including win32.h after having already included >>>>>>>> windows.h. Don't do this!" >>>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> // And also make sure windows.h can't get included after us >>>>>>>> #define _WINDOWS_ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the record, I tried the test case you linked when windows.h is >>>>>>>> not included in main.cpp and it works (but still has the bug about int and >>>>>>>> long). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:23 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is super gross, but we copy parts of windows.h because having >>>>>>>>> all of it if both gigantic and very very messy. So our win32.h has a couple >>>>>>>>> thousands of lines and not 30k+ for windows.h and we try to have zero >>>>>>>>> macros. Win32.h doesn't include windows.h so using ::BOOL wouldn't work. We >>>>>>>>> don't want to create a namespace, we just want a cleaner interface to >>>>>>>>> windows api. The namespace with c linkage is the way to trick cl into >>>>>>>>> allowing us to in some files have both windows.h and Win32.h. I really >>>>>>>>> don't see any way for us to have this Win32.h without this cl support, so >>>>>>>>> maybe we should either put windows.h in a compiled header somewhere and not >>>>>>>>> care that it is infecting everything or just have one place we can call to >>>>>>>>> clean up after including windows.h (a massive set of undefs). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So using can't work, because we never intentionally import >>>>>>>>> windows.h and win32.h on the same translation unit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is pretty gross, honestly :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can't you just use using declarations? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> namespace Win32 { >>>>>>>>>> extern "C" { >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> using ::BOOL; >>>>>>>>>> using ::LONG; >>>>>>>>>> using ::POINT; >>>>>>>>>> using ::LPPOINT; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> using ::GetCursorPos; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This works with clang-cl. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:39 AM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Here it is a minimal example, we do this so we don't have to >>>>>>>>>>> import the whole windows api everywhere. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://gist.github.com/santagada/7977e929d31c629c4bf18ebb987f6be3 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 2:31 AM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Clang-cl maintains compatibility with msvc even in cases where >>>>>>>>>>>> it’s non standards compliant (eg 2 phase name lookup), but we try to keep >>>>>>>>>>>> these cases few and far between. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To help me understand your case, do you mean you copy windows.h >>>>>>>>>>>> and modify it? How does this lead to the same struct being defined twice? >>>>>>>>>>>> If i were to write this: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> struct Foo {}; >>>>>>>>>>>> struct Foo {}; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is this a small repro of the issue you’re talking about? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 3:44 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I can totally see something like incremental linking with a >>>>>>>>>>>>> simple padding between obj and a mapping file (which can also help with >>>>>>>>>>>>> edit and continue, something we also would love to have). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We have another developer doing the port to support clang-cl, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but although most of our code also goes trough a version of clang, >>>>>>>>>>>>> migrating the rest to clang-cl has been a fight. From what I heard the main >>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is that we have a copy of parts of windows.h (so not to bring the >>>>>>>>>>>>> awful parts of it like lower case macros) and that totally works on cl, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> clang (at least 6.0) complains about two struct/vars with the same name, >>>>>>>>>>>>> even though they are exactly the same. Making clang-cl as broken as cl.exe >>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an option I suppose? I would love to turn on a flag >>>>>>>>>>>>> --accept-that-cl-made-bad-decisions-and-live-with-it and have this at least >>>>>>>>>>>>> until this is completely fixed in our code base. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the biggest win with moving to cl would be a better more >>>>>>>>>>>>> standards compliant compiler, no 1 minute compiles on heavily templated >>>>>>>>>>>>> files and maybe the holy grail of ThinLTO. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 10:56 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10-15s will be hard without true incremental linking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> At some point that's going to be the only way to get any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster, but incremental linking is hard (putting it lightly), and since our >>>>>>>>>>>>>> full links are already really fast we think we can get reasonably close to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> link.exe incremental speeds with full links. But it's never enough and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will always want it to be faster, so you may see incremental linking in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> future after we hit a performance wall with full link speed :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, I'm definitely interested in seeing what kind of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers you get with /debug:ghash after you get this llvm-objcopy feature >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented. So keep me updated :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As an aside, have you tried building with clang instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cl? If you build with clang you wouldn't even have to do this llvm-objcopy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, because it would "just work". If you've tried but ran into issues >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm interested in hearing about those too. On the other hand, it's also >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable to only switch one thing at a time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 1:34 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we get to < 30s I think most users would prefer it to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link.exe, just hopping there is still some more optimizations to get closer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ELF linking times (around 10-15s here). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Generally speaking a good rule of thumb is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /debug:ghash will be close to or faster than /debug:fastlink, but with none >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the penalties like slow debug time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:44 PM Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chrome is actually one of my exact benchmark cases. When >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building blink_core.dll and browser_tests.exe, i get anywhere from a 20-40% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in link time. We have some other optimizations in the pipeline >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but not upstream yet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My best time so far (including other optimizations not yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upstream) is 28s on blink_core.dll, compared to 110s with /debug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:28 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You probably don't want to go down the same route that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang goes through to write the object file. If you think yaml2coff is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convoluted, the way clang does it will just give you a headache. There are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple abstractions involved to account for different object file formats >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ELF, COFF, MachO) and output formats (Assembly, binary file). At least >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with yaml2coff >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think your phrase got cut there, but yeah I just found >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AsmPrinter.cpp and it is convoluted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's true that yaml2coff is using the COFFParser >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure, but if you look at the writeCOFF function in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yaml2coff it's pretty bare-metal. The logic you need will be almost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical, except that instead of checking the COFFParser for the various >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields, you'll check the existing COFFObjectFile, which should have similar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing you need to different is when writing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section table and section contents, to insert a new entry. Since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're injecting a section into the middle, you'll also probably need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push back the file pointer of all subsequent sections so that they don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overlap. (e.g. if the original sections are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and you insert >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between 2 and 3, then the original sections 3, 4, and 5 would need to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their FilePointerToRawData offset by the size of the new section). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have the PE/COFF spec open here and I'm happy that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read a bit of it so I actually know what you are talking about... yeah it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't seem too complicated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you need to know what values to put for the other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields in a section header, run `dumpbin /headers foo.obj` on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang-generated object file that has a .debug$H section already (e.g. run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang with -emit-codeview-ghash-section, and look at the properties of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .debug$H section and use the same values). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks I will do that and then also look at how the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CodeView part of the code does it if I can't understand some of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only invariant that needs to be maintained is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section[N]->FilePointerOfRawData == Section[N-1]->FilePointerOfRawData + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section[N-1]->SizeOfRawData >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, that and all the sections need to be on the final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file... But I'm hopeful. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone has times on linking a big project like chrome >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this so that at least I know what kind of performance to expect? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My numbers are something like: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 pdb per obj file: link.exe takes ~15 minutes and 16GB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of ram, lld-link.exe takes 2:30 minutes and ~8GB of ram >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around 10 pdbs per folder: link.exe takes 1 minute and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2-3GB of ram, lld-link.exe takes 1:30 minutes and ~6GB of ram >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faslink: link.exe takes 40 seconds, but then 20 seconds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of loading at the first break point in the debugger and we lost DIA support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for listing symbols. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental: link.exe takes 8 seconds, but it only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens when very minor changes happen. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have an non negligible number of symbols used on some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 11:52 AM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the tips, I now have something that reads >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the obj file, finds .debug$T sections and global hashes it (proof of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept kind of code). What I can't find is: how does clang itself writes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the coff files with global hashes, as that might help me understand how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create the .debug$H section, how to update the file section count and how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to properly write this back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code on yaml2coff is expecting to be working on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yaml COFFParser struct and I'm having quite a bit of a headache turning the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COFFObjectFile into a COFFParser object or compatible... Tomorrow I might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try the very non efficient path of coff2yaml and then yaml2coff with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hashes header... but it seems way too inefficient and convoluted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:02 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:29 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I didn't, I used cl.exe from the visual studio >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toolchain. What I'm proposing is a tool for processing .obj files in COFF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format, reading them and generating the GHASH part. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To make our build faster we use hundreds of unity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build files (.cpp's with a lot of other .cpp's in them aka munch files) but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still have a lot of single .cpp's as well (in total something like 3.4k >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .obj files). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ps: sorry for sending to the wrong list, I was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading about llvm mailing lists and jumped when I saw what I thought was a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lld exclusive list. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A tool like this would be useful, yes. We've talked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about it internally as well and agreed it would be useful, we just haven't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prioritized it. If you're interested in submitting a patch along those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lines though, I think it would be a good addition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what the best place for it would be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-readobj and llvm-objdump seem like obvious choices, but they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended to be read-only, so perhaps they wouldn't be a good fit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-pdbutil is kind of a hodgepodge of everything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else related to PDBs and symbols, so I wouldn't be opposed to making a new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subcommand there called "ghash" or something that could process an object >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file and output a new object file with a .debug$H section. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A third option would be to make a new tool for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't htink it would be that hard to write. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're interested in trying to make a patch for this, I can offer some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance on where to look in the code. Otherwise it's something that we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably get to, I'm just not sure when. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would love to write it and contribute it back, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please do tell, I did find some of the code of ghash in lld, but in fuzzy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the llvm codeview part of it and never seen llvm-readobj/objdump or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-pdbutil, but I'm not afraid to look :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Luckily all of the important code is hidden behind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> library calls, and it should already just do the right thing, so I suspect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you won't need to know much about CodeView to do this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think Peter has the right idea about putting this in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-objcopy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can look at one of the existing CopyBinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions there, which currently only work for ELF, but you can just make a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new overload that accepts a COFFObjectFile. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would probably start by iterating over each of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sections (getNumberOfSections / getSectionName) looking for .debug$T and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .debug$H sections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you find a .debug$H section then you can just skip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that object file. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you find a .debug$T but not a .debug$H, then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically do the same thing that LLD does in PDBLinker::mergeDebugT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (create a CVTypeArray, and pass it to GloballyHashedType::hashTypes. That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will return an array of hash values. (the format of .debug$H is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> header, followed by the hash values). Then when you're writing the list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sections, just add in the .debug$H section right after the .debug$T section. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently llvm-objcopy only writes ELF files, so it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would need to be taught to write COFF files. We have code to do this in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the yaml2obj utility (specifically, in yaml2coff.cpp in the function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writeCOFF). There may be a way to move this code to somewhere else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (llvm/Object/COFF.h?) so that it can be re-used by both yaml2coff and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-objcopy, but in the worst case scenario you could copy the code and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-write it to work with these new structures. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, you'll probably want to put all of this behind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an option in llvm-objcopy such as -add-codeview-ghash-section >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Leonardo Santagada >>> >> > > > -- > > Leonardo Santagada >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180125/d6fe3aaf/attachment.html>
Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
2018-Jan-25 17:52 UTC
[llvm-dev] [lldb-dev] Trying out lld to link windows binaries (using msvc as a compiler)
Actually I already have a theory that even though you are adding the section to the section table, you might not be adding a *symbol* for the section to the symbol table. So the existing symbols (which reference sections by index) will all be wrong because you've inserted a new section. Still though, obj2yaml would expose that. On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:50 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:> Yea as long as you compare clang-cl object file with automatically > generated .debug$H section against clang-cl object file without .debug$H > but added after the fact with llvm-objcopy, that should expose the problem > I think when you run obj2yaml on them. > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:49 AM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I did reorder my sections, so that .debug$H is in the correct place, but >> now I get some errors on dubplicate symbols, I created a folder with >> examples: >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nmvzi44pi0boe76/AAA0f47O5PCJ9JiUc6wVuwBra?dl=0 >> >> t.obj is generated by vs 2015 and it links fine with lld-link.exe, but >> tout.obj gives this errors: >> >> lld-link.exe /DEBUG:GHASH tout.obj >> LLD-LINK.EXE: error: duplicate symbol: __local_stdio_printf_options in >> tout.obj and in LIBCMT.lib(default_local_stdio_options.obj) >> LLD-LINK.EXE: error: duplicate symbol: __local_stdio_printf_options in >> tout.obj and in libvcruntime.lib(undname.obj) >> >> I'm using PEView from http://wjradburn.com/software/ to look at the >> files and can't see anything wrong, except some valid differences in the >> offsets being used for the data (so pointer to data is different between >> them). >> >> I will look into yaml2obj now to see if I see anything else weird going >> on. >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm pretty confident that cl is not putting anything strange in the >>> .debug$T sections. We've done a lot of testing and never seen anything >>> except CodeView type records in a .debug$T. My hunch is that your objcopy >>> patch is probably not doing the right thing in one or more of the section >>> headers, and this is confusing the linker. >>> >>> One idea might be to build a simple object file with clang-cl but >>> without the magic -mllvm -emit-codeview-ghash-section, then run your >>> llvm-objcopy on it. Then build the same object file passing -mllvm >>> -emit-codeview-ghash-section. Then run obj2yaml on both and diff the >>> results. They should be byte-for-byte identical. That should give you a >>> clue about if objcopy is doing something wrong. >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:21 AM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Don't worry, I definetly want to perfect this to generate legal obj >>>> files, this is just to speed up testing. >>>> >>>> Now after patching all the obj files I get this errors when linking a >>>> small part of our code base (msvc 2017 15.5.3, lld and llvm-objcopy 7.0.0): >>>> lld-link.exe : error : relocation against symbol in discarded section: >>>> $LN8 >>>> lld-link.exe : error : relocation against symbol in discarded section: >>>> $LN43 >>>> lld-link.exe : error : relocation against symbol in discarded section: >>>> $LN37 >>>> >>>> I'm starting to guess that cl.exe might be putting some random comdat >>>> or other discardable symbols in the .debug$T and clang doesn't? I will try >>>> to debug this and see what more I can uncover. >>>> >>>> Linking works perfectly without my llvm-objcopy pass to add .debug$H? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 1:53 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It might not influence LLD, but at the same time we don't want to >>>>> upstream something that is producing technically illegal COFF files. Also >>>>> good to hear about the planned changes to your header files. Looking >>>>> forward to hearing about your experiences with clang-cl. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:41 AM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I finally got my first .obj file patched with .debug$H to look >>>>>> somewhat right. I added the new section at the end of the file so I don't >>>>>> have to recalculate all sections (although now I probably could position it >>>>>> in the middle, knowing that each section is: SizeOfRawData + >>>>>> (last.Header.NumberOfRelocations * (4+4+2)) and the $H needs to come right >>>>>> after $T in the file). That although illegal based on the coff specs >>>>>> doesn't seem its going to influence lld. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also we talked and we are probably going to do something similar to a >>>>>> bunch of windows defines and a check for our own define (to guarantee that >>>>>> no one imported windows.h before win32.h) and drop the namespace and the >>>>>> conflicting names. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> That's very possible that a 3rd party indirect header include is >>>>>>> involved. One idea might be like I suggested where you #define _WINDOWS_ >>>>>>> in win32.h and guarantee that it's always included first. Then those other >>>>>>> headers won't be able to #include <windows.h>. but it will probably >>>>>>> greatly expand the amount of stuff you have to add to win32.h, as you will >>>>>>> probably find some callers of functions that aren't yet in your win32.h >>>>>>> that you'd have to add. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:28 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok some information was lost on getting this example to you, I'm >>>>>>>> sorry for not being clear. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have a huge code base, let's say 90% of it doesn't include >>>>>>>> either header, 9% include win32.h and 1% includes both, I will try to >>>>>>>> discover why, but my guess is they include both a third party that includes >>>>>>>> windows.h and some of our libs that use win32.h. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will try to fully understand this tomorrow. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I guess clang will not implement this ever so finishing the object >>>>>>>> copier is the best solution until all code is ported to clang. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 23 Jan 2018 00:02, "Zachary Turner" <zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You said win32.h doesn't include windows.h, but main.cpp does. So >>>>>>>>> what's the disadvantage of just including it in win32.h anyway, since it's >>>>>>>>> already going to be in every translation unit? (Unless you didn't mean to >>>>>>>>> #include it in main.cpp) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I guess all I can do is warn you how bad of an idea this is. For >>>>>>>>> starters, I already found a bug in your code ;-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> // stdint.h >>>>>>>>> typedef int int32_t; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> // winnt.h >>>>>>>>> typedef long LONG; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> // windef.h >>>>>>>>> typedef struct tagPOINT >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> LONG x; // long x >>>>>>>>> LONG y; // long y >>>>>>>>> } POINT, *PPOINT, NEAR *NPPOINT, FAR *LPPOINT; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> // win32.h >>>>>>>>> typedef int32_t LONG; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> struct POINT >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> LONG x; // int x >>>>>>>>> LONG y; // int y >>>>>>>>> }; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So POINT is defined two different ways. In your minimal >>>>>>>>> interface, it's declared as 2 int32's, which are int. In the actual >>>>>>>>> Windows header files, it's declared as 2 longs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This might seem like a unimportant bug since int and long are the >>>>>>>>> same size, but int and long also mangle differently and affect overload >>>>>>>>> resolution, so you could have weird linker errors or call the wrong >>>>>>>>> function overload. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Plus, it illustrates the fact that this struct *actually is* a >>>>>>>>> different type from the one in the windows header. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You said at the end that you never intentionally import win32.h >>>>>>>>> and windows.h from the same translation unit. But then in this example you >>>>>>>>> did. I wonder if you could enforce that by doing this: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> // win32.h >>>>>>>>> #pragma once >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> // Error if windows.h was included before us. >>>>>>>>> #if defined(_WINDOWS_) >>>>>>>>> #error "You're including win32.h after having already included >>>>>>>>> windows.h. Don't do this!" >>>>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> // And also make sure windows.h can't get included after us >>>>>>>>> #define _WINDOWS_ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the record, I tried the test case you linked when windows.h is >>>>>>>>> not included in main.cpp and it works (but still has the bug about int and >>>>>>>>> long). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:23 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is super gross, but we copy parts of windows.h because having >>>>>>>>>> all of it if both gigantic and very very messy. So our win32.h has a couple >>>>>>>>>> thousands of lines and not 30k+ for windows.h and we try to have zero >>>>>>>>>> macros. Win32.h doesn't include windows.h so using ::BOOL wouldn't work. We >>>>>>>>>> don't want to create a namespace, we just want a cleaner interface to >>>>>>>>>> windows api. The namespace with c linkage is the way to trick cl into >>>>>>>>>> allowing us to in some files have both windows.h and Win32.h. I really >>>>>>>>>> don't see any way for us to have this Win32.h without this cl support, so >>>>>>>>>> maybe we should either put windows.h in a compiled header somewhere and not >>>>>>>>>> care that it is infecting everything or just have one place we can call to >>>>>>>>>> clean up after including windows.h (a massive set of undefs). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So using can't work, because we never intentionally import >>>>>>>>>> windows.h and win32.h on the same translation unit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is pretty gross, honestly :) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Can't you just use using declarations? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> namespace Win32 { >>>>>>>>>>> extern "C" { >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> using ::BOOL; >>>>>>>>>>> using ::LONG; >>>>>>>>>>> using ::POINT; >>>>>>>>>>> using ::LPPOINT; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> using ::GetCursorPos; >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This works with clang-cl. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:39 AM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Here it is a minimal example, we do this so we don't have to >>>>>>>>>>>> import the whole windows api everywhere. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://gist.github.com/santagada/7977e929d31c629c4bf18ebb987f6be3 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 2:31 AM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Clang-cl maintains compatibility with msvc even in cases where >>>>>>>>>>>>> it’s non standards compliant (eg 2 phase name lookup), but we try to keep >>>>>>>>>>>>> these cases few and far between. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To help me understand your case, do you mean you copy >>>>>>>>>>>>> windows.h and modify it? How does this lead to the same struct being >>>>>>>>>>>>> defined twice? If i were to write this: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> struct Foo {}; >>>>>>>>>>>>> struct Foo {}; >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this a small repro of the issue you’re talking about? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 3:44 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can totally see something like incremental linking with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple padding between obj and a mapping file (which can also help with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> edit and continue, something we also would love to have). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have another developer doing the port to support clang-cl, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but although most of our code also goes trough a version of clang, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> migrating the rest to clang-cl has been a fight. From what I heard the main >>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is that we have a copy of parts of windows.h (so not to bring the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> awful parts of it like lower case macros) and that totally works on cl, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang (at least 6.0) complains about two struct/vars with the same name, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though they are exactly the same. Making clang-cl as broken as cl.exe >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an option I suppose? I would love to turn on a flag >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --accept-that-cl-made-bad-decisions-and-live-with-it and have this at least >>>>>>>>>>>>>> until this is completely fixed in our code base. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the biggest win with moving to cl would be a better more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards compliant compiler, no 1 minute compiles on heavily templated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> files and maybe the holy grail of ThinLTO. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 10:56 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10-15s will be hard without true incremental linking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At some point that's going to be the only way to get any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster, but incremental linking is hard (putting it lightly), and since our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full links are already really fast we think we can get reasonably close to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link.exe incremental speeds with full links. But it's never enough and I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will always want it to be faster, so you may see incremental linking in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future after we hit a performance wall with full link speed :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, I'm definitely interested in seeing what kind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of numbers you get with /debug:ghash after you get this llvm-objcopy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature implemented. So keep me updated :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As an aside, have you tried building with clang instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cl? If you build with clang you wouldn't even have to do this llvm-objcopy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, because it would "just work". If you've tried but ran into issues >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm interested in hearing about those too. On the other hand, it's also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable to only switch one thing at a time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 1:34 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we get to < 30s I think most users would prefer it to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link.exe, just hopping there is still some more optimizations to get closer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ELF linking times (around 10-15s here). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Generally speaking a good rule of thumb is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /debug:ghash will be close to or faster than /debug:fastlink, but with none >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the penalties like slow debug time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:44 PM Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chrome is actually one of my exact benchmark cases. When >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building blink_core.dll and browser_tests.exe, i get anywhere from a 20-40% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction in link time. We have some other optimizations in the pipeline >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but not upstream yet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My best time so far (including other optimizations not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet upstream) is 28s on blink_core.dll, compared to 110s with /debug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:28 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You probably don't want to go down the same route that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang goes through to write the object file. If you think yaml2coff is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convoluted, the way clang does it will just give you a headache. There are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple abstractions involved to account for different object file formats >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ELF, COFF, MachO) and output formats (Assembly, binary file). At least >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with yaml2coff >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think your phrase got cut there, but yeah I just found >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AsmPrinter.cpp and it is convoluted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's true that yaml2coff is using the COFFParser >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure, but if you look at the writeCOFF function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in yaml2coff it's pretty bare-metal. The logic you need will be almost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical, except that instead of checking the COFFParser for the various >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields, you'll check the existing COFFObjectFile, which should have similar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing you need to different is when writing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the section table and section contents, to insert a new entry. Since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're injecting a section into the middle, you'll also probably need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push back the file pointer of all subsequent sections so that they don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overlap. (e.g. if the original sections are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and you insert >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between 2 and 3, then the original sections 3, 4, and 5 would need to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their FilePointerToRawData offset by the size of the new section). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have the PE/COFF spec open here and I'm happy that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read a bit of it so I actually know what you are talking about... yeah it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't seem too complicated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you need to know what values to put for the other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields in a section header, run `dumpbin /headers foo.obj` on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang-generated object file that has a .debug$H section already (e.g. run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang with -emit-codeview-ghash-section, and look at the properties of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .debug$H section and use the same values). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks I will do that and then also look at how the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CodeView part of the code does it if I can't understand some of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only invariant that needs to be maintained is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section[N]->FilePointerOfRawData == Section[N-1]->FilePointerOfRawData + >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Section[N-1]->SizeOfRawData >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, that and all the sections need to be on the final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file... But I'm hopeful. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone has times on linking a big project like chrome >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this so that at least I know what kind of performance to expect? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My numbers are something like: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 pdb per obj file: link.exe takes ~15 minutes and 16GB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of ram, lld-link.exe takes 2:30 minutes and ~8GB of ram >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around 10 pdbs per folder: link.exe takes 1 minute and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2-3GB of ram, lld-link.exe takes 1:30 minutes and ~6GB of ram >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faslink: link.exe takes 40 seconds, but then 20 seconds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of loading at the first break point in the debugger and we lost DIA support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for listing symbols. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental: link.exe takes 8 seconds, but it only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens when very minor changes happen. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have an non negligible number of symbols used on some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime systems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 11:52 AM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the tips, I now have something that reads >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the obj file, finds .debug$T sections and global hashes it (proof of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept kind of code). What I can't find is: how does clang itself writes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the coff files with global hashes, as that might help me understand how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create the .debug$H section, how to update the file section count and how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to properly write this back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code on yaml2coff is expecting to be working on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the yaml COFFParser struct and I'm having quite a bit of a headache turning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the COFFObjectFile into a COFFParser object or compatible... Tomorrow I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might try the very non efficient path of coff2yaml and then yaml2coff with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the hashes header... but it seems way too inefficient and convoluted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:02 PM Leonardo Santagada < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Zachary Turner < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:29 PM Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <santagada at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I didn't, I used cl.exe from the visual studio >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toolchain. What I'm proposing is a tool for processing .obj files in COFF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format, reading them and generating the GHASH part. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To make our build faster we use hundreds of unity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build files (.cpp's with a lot of other .cpp's in them aka munch files) but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still have a lot of single .cpp's as well (in total something like 3.4k >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .obj files). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ps: sorry for sending to the wrong list, I was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reading about llvm mailing lists and jumped when I saw what I thought was a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lld exclusive list. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A tool like this would be useful, yes. We've >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talked about it internally as well and agreed it would be useful, we just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't prioritized it. If you're interested in submitting a patch along >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those lines though, I think it would be a good addition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what the best place for it would be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-readobj and llvm-objdump seem like obvious choices, but they are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intended to be read-only, so perhaps they wouldn't be a good fit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-pdbutil is kind of a hodgepodge of everything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else related to PDBs and symbols, so I wouldn't be opposed to making a new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subcommand there called "ghash" or something that could process an object >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file and output a new object file with a .debug$H section. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A third option would be to make a new tool for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't htink it would be that hard to write. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're interested in trying to make a patch for this, I can offer some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance on where to look in the code. Otherwise it's something that we'll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably get to, I'm just not sure when. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would love to write it and contribute it back, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please do tell, I did find some of the code of ghash in lld, but in fuzzy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the llvm codeview part of it and never seen llvm-readobj/objdump or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-pdbutil, but I'm not afraid to look :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Luckily all of the important code is hidden behind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> library calls, and it should already just do the right thing, so I suspect >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you won't need to know much about CodeView to do this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think Peter has the right idea about putting this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in llvm-objcopy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can look at one of the existing CopyBinary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions there, which currently only work for ELF, but you can just make a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new overload that accepts a COFFObjectFile. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would probably start by iterating over each of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sections (getNumberOfSections / getSectionName) looking for .debug$T and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .debug$H sections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you find a .debug$H section then you can just skip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that object file. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you find a .debug$T but not a .debug$H, then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically do the same thing that LLD does in PDBLinker::mergeDebugT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (create a CVTypeArray, and pass it to GloballyHashedType::hashTypes. That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will return an array of hash values. (the format of .debug$H is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> header, followed by the hash values). Then when you're writing the list of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sections, just add in the .debug$H section right after the .debug$T section. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently llvm-objcopy only writes ELF files, so it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would need to be taught to write COFF files. We have code to do this in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the yaml2obj utility (specifically, in yaml2coff.cpp in the function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writeCOFF). There may be a way to move this code to somewhere else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (llvm/Object/COFF.h?) so that it can be re-used by both yaml2coff and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm-objcopy, but in the worst case scenario you could copy the code and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-write it to work with these new structures. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, you'll probably want to put all of this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behind an option in llvm-objcopy such as -add-codeview-ghash-section >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Leonardo Santagada >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Leonardo Santagada >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180125/35fd604f/attachment-0001.html>
Possibly Parallel Threads
- [lldb-dev] Trying out lld to link windows binaries (using msvc as a compiler)
- [lldb-dev] Trying out lld to link windows binaries (using msvc as a compiler)
- [lldb-dev] Trying out lld to link windows binaries (using msvc as a compiler)
- [lldb-dev] Trying out lld to link windows binaries (using msvc as a compiler)
- [lldb-dev] Trying out lld to link windows binaries (using msvc as a compiler)