+ Nick Rui, Does PECOFF writer need the filename in the writer as well, I am not sure if linker scripts are supported with PECOFF though. If PECOFF also needs it, I think it makes sense to store the filename in the Atom as the native format needs to store that information. The only option for the ELF writer to know this information is to use References if other flavors dont need the filename (only in DEBUG mode, clumsy but would work). PS : Moving this discussion to llvmdev. Shankar Easwaran On 12/1/2014 2:34 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote:> That sounds like we really need a new property of Atom. > > 1. If we run LLD in Release build, the roundtrip passes don't run, so > everything works fine. > 2. If we run LLD in Debug build (and from the unit tests), the information > is dropped during the round-trip conversion, and it fails. > 3. RoundTrip tests should't drop any information. > > 2 and 3 conflicts. > > I should note that, again, I don't actually like the idea of YAML/Native > format, though. It feels like it doesn't worth the cost of maintaining two > more different outputs. > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> > wrote: > >> Hi Rui, >> >> We discussed to add a new property to the atom, but its really not needed >> as the original filename from where the atom was parsed is available in >> release mode(roundtrip passes dont get called in release mode). >> >> The discussion was here, http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014- >> November/078910.html. >> >> Shankar Easwaran >> >> >>-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation
We don't need a filename for the PE/COFF writer, but if it existed, it wouldn't hurt us. We'll leave the field nullptr. I don't think we need to vote here. Even if only one arch needs it, if it should naturally be added to Atom, it should be added to Atom. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote:> + Nick > > Rui, > > Does PECOFF writer need the filename in the writer as well, I am not sure > if linker scripts are supported with PECOFF though. > > If PECOFF also needs it, I think it makes sense to store the filename in > the Atom as the native format needs to store that information. > > The only option for the ELF writer to know this information is to use > References if other flavors dont need the filename (only in DEBUG mode, > clumsy but would work). > > PS : Moving this discussion to llvmdev. > > Shankar Easwaran > > On 12/1/2014 2:34 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: > >> That sounds like we really need a new property of Atom. >> >> 1. If we run LLD in Release build, the roundtrip passes don't run, so >> everything works fine. >> 2. If we run LLD in Debug build (and from the unit tests), the information >> is dropped during the round-trip conversion, and it fails. >> 3. RoundTrip tests should't drop any information. >> >> 2 and 3 conflicts. >> >> I should note that, again, I don't actually like the idea of YAML/Native >> format, though. It feels like it doesn't worth the cost of maintaining two >> more different outputs. >> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Shankar Easwaran < >> shankare at codeaurora.org> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Rui, >>> >>> We discussed to add a new property to the atom, but its really not needed >>> as the original filename from where the atom was parsed is available in >>> release mode(roundtrip passes dont get called in release mode). >>> >>> The discussion was here, http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/ >>> pipermail/llvmdev/2014- >>> November/078910.html. >>> >>> Shankar Easwaran >>> >>> >>> >>> > -- > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted > by the Linux Foundation > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141201/98855231/attachment.html>
Hi, Since all the atoms in a file share the same filename/membername(for archives), we could have a field thats could be used as metadata. Formats may decide to store metadata information, if they decide to. We should restrict the types of metadata information that can be added though (metadataKinds). Shankar Easwaran On 12/1/2014 2:49 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote:> We don't need a filename for the PE/COFF writer, but if it existed, it > wouldn't hurt us. We'll leave the field nullptr. > > I don't think we need to vote here. Even if only one arch needs it, if it > should naturally be added to Atom, it should be added to Atom. > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> > wrote: > >> + Nick >> >> Rui, >> >> Does PECOFF writer need the filename in the writer as well, I am not sure >> if linker scripts are supported with PECOFF though. >> >> If PECOFF also needs it, I think it makes sense to store the filename in >> the Atom as the native format needs to store that information. >> >> The only option for the ELF writer to know this information is to use >> References if other flavors dont need the filename (only in DEBUG mode, >> clumsy but would work). >> >> PS : Moving this discussion to llvmdev. >> >> Shankar Easwaran >> >> On 12/1/2014 2:34 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: >> >>> That sounds like we really need a new property of Atom. >>> >>> 1. If we run LLD in Release build, the roundtrip passes don't run, so >>> everything works fine. >>> 2. If we run LLD in Debug build (and from the unit tests), the information >>> is dropped during the round-trip conversion, and it fails. >>> 3. RoundTrip tests should't drop any information. >>> >>> 2 and 3 conflicts. >>> >>> I should note that, again, I don't actually like the idea of YAML/Native >>> format, though. It feels like it doesn't worth the cost of maintaining two >>> more different outputs. >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Shankar Easwaran < >>> shankare at codeaurora.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Rui, >>>> We discussed to add a new property to the atom, but its really not needed >>>> as the original filename from where the atom was parsed is available in >>>> release mode(roundtrip passes dont get called in release mode). >>>> >>>> The discussion was here, http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/ >>>> pipermail/llvmdev/2014- >>>> November/078910.html. >>>> >>>> Shankar Easwaran >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -- >> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted >> by the Linux Foundation >> >>-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation
Apparently Analagous Threads
- [LLVMdev] [lld][PECOFF] assert from lld once in 5 test runs.
- [LLVMdev] [lld] lld build needs to have flags that specify what flavor/targets to build ?
- [LLVMdev] [lld] consolidating the usage of saving references
- [LLVMdev] [lld] Using llvm-mc in lld test suite
- [LLVMdev] [lld] lld build needs to have flags that specify what flavor/targets to build ?