llvm dev - Jan 2019 - [RFC] Proposal: llvm-tapi, adding YAML/stub generation for ELF linking support

Some patches have landed and several are up for review but there's nothing
100% working where you can use it today. It's an ongoing effort. I think
linking with MachO is a bit far off at the moment but Jurgen would know
more. It's also my understanding the the MachO linker is lagging a bit
behind in terms of what it can actually manage to link compared to the ELF
and COFF linker anyhow so it might not be the best option for you any how.

Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 11:54 PM Moritz Angermann <moritz.angermann at
gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> did anything happen in this regard throughout the last three month? Are
> there
> any open diffs for the ELF part or the Mach-O part or even been merged
> already?
>
> What's the current state of say being able to read apples TBD files on
> linux when
> linking?
>
> Cheers,
>  Moritz
>
> > On Sep 29, 2018, at 2:33 AM, Jake Ehrlich via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Oof, I didn't think about Clang not being in the same place.
Perhaps we
> could put this in clang-tools-extra to solve that?
> >
> > As for the unification of the code bases. I was assuming we didn't
want
> to just throw a ton of code over the wall anyway so the merge was going to
> need to be reviewed chunk by chunk anyhow. Support for the two formats
> should be possible to add in parallel (although, I assume if anyone puts in
> the time the MachO support could race ahead). The hope would be that people
> familiar with Apple's tapi would catch any cases where something that
would
> make it difficult to merge code from Apple's tapi in during review.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:46 AM Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > I think that the idea of adding an llvm-tapi tool that is ELF-only and
> ignoring the earlier efforts to upstream Apple's tapi would be
unfortunate.
> Unifying the codebases after the fact could be challenging and complicated,
> especially since Apple's tapi relies on clang not just LLVM. That would
> mean a different source organization and layout from the start.
> >
> > -Chris
> >
> > > On Sep 27, 2018, at 2:42 PM, Armando Montanez via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Since the goal is to start llvm-tapi more or less from scratch, I
feel
> > > the best approach initially is to focus on the structure as a key
> > > point of feedback in initial reviews. Once the foundations are
set,
> > > integrating Mach-O TAPI in parallel with the ELF implementation
should
> > > be relatively straightforward. The features outside of stubbing
aren't
> > > as appealing for ELF, so I probably won't be working on
extending that
> > > functionality. With that being said, the overall design goal is
> > > generalization/abstraction where possible to welcome feature
parity in
> > > case it is eventually desired. I'm sure we'll run into
things that
> > > belong in the tool but end up being uniquely specialized, and it
will
> > > probably be best to address them on a case-by-case basis.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:42 PM Steven Wu <stevenwu at
apple.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Armando
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the detailed RFC and all the background research.
I think
> the concept is good and I will be happy to work with you to integrate the
> ELF implementation with Apple's MachO implementation and contribute it
> upstream. Do you have any proposal on how to integrate with Apple's
tapi
> and how should we collaborate?
> > >>
> > >> Also, Apple's tapi does more than just stubbing. Are you
interested
> to add ELF support for other features as well? (I guess it should not be
> too hard to do that).
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >>
> > >> Steven
> > >>
> > >>> On Sep 26, 2018, at 8:29 AM, Armando Montanez via
llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hello all,
> > >>>
> > >>> LLVM-TAPI seeks to decouple the necessary link-time
information for a
> > >>> dynamic shared object from the implementation of the
runtime object.
> > >>> This process will be referred to as dynamic shared object
(DSO)
> > >>> stubbing throughout this proposal. A number of projects
have
> > >>> implemented their own versions of shared object stubbing
for a
> variety
> > >>> of reasons related to improving the overall linking
experience. This
> > >>> functionality is absent from LLVM despite how close the
practice is
> to
> > >>> LLVM’s domain. The goal of this project would be to
produce a library
> > >>> for LLVM that not only provides a means for DSO stubbing,
but also
> > >>> gives meaningful insight into the contents of these stubs
and how
> they
> > >>> change. I’ve collected a few example instances of object
stubbing as
> > >>> part of larger tools and the key benefits that resulted
from them:
> > >>>
> > >>> - Apple’s TAPI [1]: Stubbing used to reduce SDK size and
improve
> build times.
> > >>> - Oracle’s Solaris OS linker [2]: Stubbing used to
improve build
> > >>> times, and improve robustness of build system (against
dependency
> > >>> cycles and race conditions).
> > >>> - Google’s Bazel [3]: Stubbing used to improve build
times.
> > >>> - Google’s Fuchsia [4] [5]: Stubbing used to improve
build times.
> > >>> - Android NDK: Stubbing used to reduce size of native
sdk, control
> > >>> exported symbols, and improve build times.
> > >>>
> > >>> Somewhat tangentially, a tool called libabigail [6]
provides
> utilities
> > >>> for tracking changes relevant to ELF files in a
meaningful way. One
> of
> > >>> libabigai’s tools provides very detailed textual XML
representations
> > >>> of objects, which is especially useful in the absence of
a
> preexisting
> > >>> textual representation of shared objects’ exposed
interfaces. Glibc
> > >>> [7] and libc++ [8] have made an effort to address this in
their own
> > >>> ways by using scripts to produce textual representations
of object
> > >>> interfaces. This functionality makes it significantly
easier to
> > >>> analyze and control symbol visibility, though the
existing solutions
> > >>> are quite bespoke. Controlling these symbols can have an
implicit
> > >>> benefit of reducing binary size by pruning visible
symbols, but the
> > >>> more critical feature is being able to easily view and
edit the
> > >>> exposed symbols in the first place. Using human-readable
stubs
> > >>> addresses the issues of DSO analysis and control without
requiring
> > >>> highly specialized tools. This does not strive to replace
tools
> > >>> altogether; it just makes small tasks significantly more
> approachable.
> > >>>
> > >>> llvm-tapi would strive to be an intersection between a
means to
> > >>> produce and link against stubs, and providing tools that
offer more
> > >>> control and insight into the public interfaces of DSOs.
More
> > >>> fundamentally, llvm-tapi would introduce a library to
generate and
> > >>> ingest human-readable stubs from DSOs to address these
issues
> directly
> > >>> in LLVM. Overall, this idea is most similar to the vein
of Apple’s
> > >>> TAPI, as the original TAPI also uses human-readable
stubs.
> > >>>
> > >>> In general, llvm-tapi should:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. Produce human-readable text files from dynamic shared
objects that
> > >>> are concise, readable, and contain everything required
for linking
> > >>> that can’t be implicitly derived.
> > >>> 2. Produce linkable files from said human readable text
files.
> > >>> 3. Provide tools to track and control the exposed
interfaces of
> object files.
> > >>> 4. Integrate well with LLVM’s existing tools.
> > >>> 5. Strive to enable integration of the original TAPI code
for Mach-O
> support.
> > >>>
> > >>> There are a number of key benefits to using stubs and
text-based
> > >>> application binary interfaces such as:
> > >>> - Reducing the size of dynamic shared objects used
exclusively for
> linking.
> > >>> - The ability to avoid re-linking an object when its
dependencies’
> > >>> exposed interfaces do not change but their implementation
does (which
> > >>> happens frequently).
> > >>> - Simplicity of viewing a diff for a changed DSO
interface.
> > >>> A large number of other use cases exist; this would open
up the floor
> > >>> for a variety of other tools and future work as the
concept is rather
> > >>> generic.
> > >>>
> > >>> The proposed YAML format would be analogous to Apple’s
.tbd format
> but
> > >>> differ in a few ways to support ELF object types. An
example would be
> > >>> as follows:
> > >>>
> > >>> --- !tapi-tbe-v1
> > >>> soname: someobj.so
> > >>> architecture: aarch64
> > >>> symbols:
> > >>> - name: fish
> > >>>  type: object
> > >>>  size: 48
> > >>> - name: foobar
> > >>>  type: function
> > >>>  warning-text: “deprecated in SOMEOBJ_1.3”
> > >>> - name: printf
> > >>>  type: function
> > >>> - name: rndfunc
> > >>>  type: function
> > >>>  undefined: true
> > >>> ...
> > >>>
> > >>> (Note that this doesn’t account for version sets, but
such
> > >>> functionality can be included in a later version.)
> > >>>
> > >>> Most of the fields are self-explanatory, with size not
being relevant
> > >>> to function symbols, and warning text being purely
optional. One
> > >>> reason this departs from .tbd format is to make diffs
much easier:
> > >>> sorting symbols alphabetically on individual lines makes
it much more
> > >>> obvious which symbols are added, removed, or modified.
Despite the
> > >>> differences, the desire is for llvm-tapi to be structured
such that
> > >>> integrating Apple’s Mach-O TAPI will be plausible and
welcomed. Prior
> > >>> discussion [9] indicated interest in integrating Apple
TAPI into
> LLVM,
> > >>> so I’d definitely like to leave that door open and
encourage that in
> > >>> the future.
> > >>>
> > >>> I feel the best place to start this is as a library to
best
> facilitate
> > >>> integration into other areas of LLVM, later wrapping it
in a
> > >>> standalone tool and eventually considering direct
integration into
> > >>> LLD. The tool will initially support basic generation of
.tbe and
> stub
> > >>> files from .tbe or ELF. This should give enough
functionality for
> > >>> manually checking shared object interface diffs, as well
as having
> > >>> access to linkable stubs. The goal is for the tool to
eventually
> > >>> provide additional functionality such as compatibility
checking, but
> > >>> that’s a ways into the future.shared
> > >>>
> > >>> There’s multiple options for integrating llvm-tapi to
work with LLD;
> > >>> LLD could directly use llvm-tapi to produce and ingest
.tbe files
> > >>> directly, or llvm-tapi could be used to produce stubs
that LLD can be
> > >>> taught to use. From a technical standpoint, these are not
mutually
> > >>> exclusive. This step is a ways down the road, but is
definitely a
> > >>> high-priority goal.
> > >>>
> > >>> I’m interested to hear your thoughts and feedback on
this.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best,
> > >>> Armando
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> [1] https://github.com/ributzka/tapi
> > >>> [2]
> https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E23824_01/html/819-0690/chapter2-22.html
> > >>> [3]
>
https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/user-manual.html#flag--interface_shared_objects
> > >>> [4]
> https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/zircon/+/master/scripts/shlib-symbols
> > >>> [5]
> https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/zircon/+/master/scripts/dso-abi.h
> > >>> [6] https://sourceware.org/libabigail/
> > >>> [7]
>
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=scripts/abilist.awk;h=bad7c3807e478e50e63c3834aa8969214bdd6f63;hb=HEAD
> > >>> [8]
> https://github.com/llvm-mirror/libcxx/blob/master/utils/sym_extract.py
> > >>> [9]
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2018-April/thread.html#57576
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> > >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181230/e77d519f/attachment.html>

<div dir='auto'>Maybe LLD is lagging behind, but is the TAPI stuff
that's landed close enough to the original such that Apple cctools could be
modified to use it?<div dir="auto"><br></div><div
dir="auto">Cheers,</div><div
dir="auto"><br></div><div
dir="auto">John</div></div><div
class="gmail_extra"><br><div
class="gmail_quote">On Dec 30, 2018 6:09 PM, Jake Ehrlich
<jakehehrlich@google.com> wrote:<br type="attribution"
/><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Some patches have
landed and several are up for review but there's nothing 100% working where
you can use it today. It's an ongoing effort. I think linking with MachO is
a bit far off at the moment but Jurgen would know more. It's also my
understanding the the MachO linker is lagging a bit behind in terms of what it
can actually manage to link compared to the ELF and COFF linker anyhow so it
might not be the best option for you any how.<div><br
/></div><div>Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 11:54 PM Moritz Angermann
<<a
href="mailto:moritz.angermann@gmail.com">moritz.angermann@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<div class="elided-text"><blockquote
style="margin:0 0 0 0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi everyone,<br />

<br />

did anything happen in this regard throughout the last three month? Are
there<br />

any open diffs for the ELF part or the Mach-O part or even been merged
already?<br />

<br />

What's the current state of say being able to read apples TBD files on linux
when<br />

linking?<br />

<br />

Cheers,<br />

 Moritz<br />

<br />
> On Sep 29, 2018, at 2:33 AM, Jake Ehrlich via llvm-dev <<a
href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>
wrote:<br />
> <br />
> Oof, I didn't think about Clang not being in the same place. Perhaps we
could put this in clang-tools-extra to solve that?<br />
> <br />
> As for the unification of the code bases. I was assuming we didn't want
to just throw a ton of code over the wall anyway so the merge was going to need
to be reviewed chunk by chunk anyhow. Support for the two formats should be
possible to add in parallel (although, I assume if anyone puts in the time the
MachO support could race ahead). The hope would be that people familiar with
Apple's tapi would catch any cases where something that would make it
difficult to merge code from Apple's tapi in during review.<br />
> <br />
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:46 AM Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev <<a
href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>
wrote:<br />
> I think that the idea of adding an llvm-tapi tool that is ELF-only and
ignoring the earlier efforts to upstream Apple's tapi would be unfortunate.
Unifying the codebases after the fact could be challenging and complicated,
especially since Apple's tapi relies on clang not just LLVM. That would mean
a different source organization and layout from the start.<br />
> <br />
> -Chris<br />
> <br />
> > On Sep 27, 2018, at 2:42 PM, Armando Montanez via llvm-dev <<a
href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>
wrote:<br />
> ><br />
> > Since the goal is to start llvm-tapi more or less from scratch, I
feel<br />
> > the best approach initially is to focus on the structure as a
key<br />
> > point of feedback in initial reviews. Once the foundations are
set,<br />
> > integrating Mach-O TAPI in parallel with the ELF implementation
should<br />
> > be relatively straightforward. The features outside of stubbing
aren't<br />
> > as appealing for ELF, so I probably won't be working on extending
that<br />
> > functionality. With that being said, the overall design goal is<br
/>
> > generalization/abstraction where possible to welcome feature parity
in<br />
> > case it is eventually desired. I'm sure we'll run into things
that<br />
> > belong in the tool but end up being uniquely specialized, and it
will<br />
> > probably be best to address them on a case-by-case basis.<br />
> ><br />
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:42 PM Steven Wu <<a
href="mailto:stevenwu@apple.com">stevenwu@apple.com</a>>
wrote:<br />
> >><br />
> >> Hi Armando<br />
> >><br />
> >> Thanks for the detailed RFC and all the background research. I
think the concept is good and I will be happy to work with you to integrate the
ELF implementation with Apple's MachO implementation and contribute it
upstream. Do you have any proposal on how to integrate with Apple's tapi and
how should we collaborate?<br />
> >><br />
> >> Also, Apple's tapi does more than just stubbing. Are you
interested to add ELF support for other features as well? (I guess it should not
be too hard to do that).<br />
> >><br />
> >> Thanks<br />
> >><br />
> >> Steven<br />
> >><br />
> >>> On Sep 26, 2018, at 8:29 AM, Armando Montanez via llvm-dev
<<a
href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>
wrote:<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> Hello all,<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> LLVM-TAPI seeks to decouple the necessary link-time
information for a<br />
> >>> dynamic shared object from the implementation of the runtime
object.<br />
> >>> This process will be referred to as dynamic shared object
(DSO)<br />
> >>> stubbing throughout this proposal. A number of projects
have<br />
> >>> implemented their own versions of shared object stubbing for a
variety<br />
> >>> of reasons related to improving the overall linking
experience. This<br />
> >>> functionality is absent from LLVM despite how close the
practice is to<br />
> >>> LLVM’s domain. The goal of this project would be to produce a
library<br />
> >>> for LLVM that not only provides a means for DSO stubbing, but
also<br />
> >>> gives meaningful insight into the contents of these stubs and
how they<br />
> >>> change. I’ve collected a few example instances of object
stubbing as<br />
> >>> part of larger tools and the key benefits that resulted from
them:<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> - Apple’s TAPI [1]: Stubbing used to reduce SDK size and
improve build times.<br />
> >>> - Oracle’s Solaris OS linker [2]: Stubbing used to improve
build<br />
> >>> times, and improve robustness of build system (against
dependency<br />
> >>> cycles and race conditions).<br />
> >>> - Google’s Bazel [3]: Stubbing used to improve build
times.<br />
> >>> - Google’s Fuchsia [4] [5]: Stubbing used to improve build
times.<br />
> >>> - Android NDK: Stubbing used to reduce size of native sdk,
control<br />
> >>> exported symbols, and improve build times.<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> Somewhat tangentially, a tool called libabigail [6] provides
utilities<br />
> >>> for tracking changes relevant to ELF files in a meaningful
way. One of<br />
> >>> libabigai’s tools provides very detailed textual XML
representations<br />
> >>> of objects, which is especially useful in the absence of a
preexisting<br />
> >>> textual representation of shared objects’ exposed interfaces.
Glibc<br />
> >>> [7] and libc++ [8] have made an effort to address this in
their own<br />
> >>> ways by using scripts to produce textual representations of
object<br />
> >>> interfaces. This functionality makes it significantly easier
to<br />
> >>> analyze and control symbol visibility, though the existing
solutions<br />
> >>> are quite bespoke. Controlling these symbols can have an
implicit<br />
> >>> benefit of reducing binary size by pruning visible symbols,
but the<br />
> >>> more critical feature is being able to easily view and edit
the<br />
> >>> exposed symbols in the first place. Using human-readable
stubs<br />
> >>> addresses the issues of DSO analysis and control without
requiring<br />
> >>> highly specialized tools. This does not strive to replace
tools<br />
> >>> altogether; it just makes small tasks significantly more
approachable.<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> llvm-tapi would strive to be an intersection between a means
to<br />
> >>> produce and link against stubs, and providing tools that offer
more<br />
> >>> control and insight into the public interfaces of DSOs.
More<br />
> >>> fundamentally, llvm-tapi would introduce a library to generate
and<br />
> >>> ingest human-readable stubs from DSOs to address these issues
directly<br />
> >>> in LLVM. Overall, this idea is most similar to the vein of
Apple’s<br />
> >>> TAPI, as the original TAPI also uses human-readable
stubs.<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> In general, llvm-tapi should:<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> 1. Produce human-readable text files from dynamic shared
objects that<br />
> >>> are concise, readable, and contain everything required for
linking<br />
> >>> that can’t be implicitly derived.<br />
> >>> 2. Produce linkable files from said human readable text
files.<br />
> >>> 3. Provide tools to track and control the exposed interfaces
of object files.<br />
> >>> 4. Integrate well with LLVM’s existing tools.<br />
> >>> 5. Strive to enable integration of the original TAPI code for
Mach-O support.<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> There are a number of key benefits to using stubs and
text-based<br />
> >>> application binary interfaces such as:<br />
> >>> - Reducing the size of dynamic shared objects used exclusively
for linking.<br />
> >>> - The ability to avoid re-linking an object when its
dependencies’<br />
> >>> exposed interfaces do not change but their implementation does
(which<br />
> >>> happens frequently).<br />
> >>> - Simplicity of viewing a diff for a changed DSO
interface.<br />
> >>> A large number of other use cases exist; this would open up
the floor<br />
> >>> for a variety of other tools and future work as the concept is
rather<br />
> >>> generic.<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> The proposed YAML format would be analogous to Apple’s .tbd
format but<br />
> >>> differ in a few ways to support ELF object types. An example
would be<br />
> >>> as follows:<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> --- !tapi-tbe-v1<br />
> >>> soname: someobj.so<br />
> >>> architecture: aarch64<br />
> >>> symbols:<br />
> >>> - name: fish<br />
> >>>  type: object<br />
> >>>  size: 48<br />
> >>> - name: foobar<br />
> >>>  type: function<br />
> >>>  warning-text: “deprecated in SOMEOBJ_1.3”<br />
> >>> - name: printf<br />
> >>>  type: function<br />
> >>> - name: rndfunc<br />
> >>>  type: function<br />
> >>>  undefined: true<br />
> >>> ...<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> (Note that this doesn’t account for version sets, but
such<br />
> >>> functionality can be included in a later version.)<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> Most of the fields are self-explanatory, with size not being
relevant<br />
> >>> to function symbols, and warning text being purely optional.
One<br />
> >>> reason this departs from .tbd format is to make diffs much
easier:<br />
> >>> sorting symbols alphabetically on individual lines makes it
much more<br />
> >>> obvious which symbols are added, removed, or modified. Despite
the<br />
> >>> differences, the desire is for llvm-tapi to be structured such
that<br />
> >>> integrating Apple’s Mach-O TAPI will be plausible and
welcomed. Prior<br />
> >>> discussion [9] indicated interest in integrating Apple TAPI
into LLVM,<br />
> >>> so I’d definitely like to leave that door open and encourage
that in<br />
> >>> the future.<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> I feel the best place to start this is as a library to best
facilitate<br />
> >>> integration into other areas of LLVM, later wrapping it in
a<br />
> >>> standalone tool and eventually considering direct integration
into<br />
> >>> LLD. The tool will initially support basic generation of .tbe
and stub<br />
> >>> files from .tbe or ELF. This should give enough functionality
for<br />
> >>> manually checking shared object interface diffs, as well as
having<br />
> >>> access to linkable stubs. The goal is for the tool to
eventually<br />
> >>> provide additional functionality such as compatibility
checking, but<br />
> >>> that’s a ways into the future.shared<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> There’s multiple options for integrating llvm-tapi to work
with LLD;<br />
> >>> LLD could directly use llvm-tapi to produce and ingest .tbe
files<br />
> >>> directly, or llvm-tapi could be used to produce stubs that LLD
can be<br />
> >>> taught to use. From a technical standpoint, these are not
mutually<br />
> >>> exclusive. This step is a ways down the road, but is
definitely a<br />
> >>> high-priority goal.<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> I’m interested to hear your thoughts and feedback on
this.<br />
> >>><br />
> >>> Best,<br />
> >>> Armando<br />
> >>><br />
> >>><br />
> >>> [1] <a
href="https://github.com/ributzka/tapi">https://github.com/ributzka/tapi</a><br
/>
> >>> [2] <a
href="https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E23824_01/html/819-0690/chapter2-22.html">https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E23824_01/html/819-0690/chapter2-22.html</a><br
/>
> >>> [3] <a
href="https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/user-manual.html#flag--interface_shared_objects">https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/user-manual.html#flag--interface_shared_objects</a><br
/>
> >>> [4] <a
href="https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/zircon/+/master/scripts/shlib-symbols">https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/zircon/+/master/scripts/shlib-symbols</a><br
/>
> >>> [5] <a
href="https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/zircon/+/master/scripts/dso-abi.h">https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/zircon/+/master/scripts/dso-abi.h</a><br
/>
> >>> [6] <a
href="https://sourceware.org/libabigail/">https://sourceware.org/libabigail/</a><br
/>
> >>> [7] <a
href="https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=scripts/abilist.awk;h=bad7c3807e478e50e63c3834aa8969214bdd6f63;hb=HEAD">https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=scripts/abilist.awk;h=bad7c3807e478e50e63c3834aa8969214bdd6f63;hb=HEAD</a><br
/>
> >>> [8] <a
href="https://github.com/llvm-mirror/libcxx/blob/master/utils/sym_extract.py">https://github.com/llvm-mirror/libcxx/blob/master/utils/sym_extract.py</a><br
/>
> >>> [9] <a
href="http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2018-April/thread.html#57576">http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2018-April/thread.html#57576</a><br
/>
> >>> _______________________________________________<br />
> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list<br />
> >>> <a
href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br
/>
> >>> <a
href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br
/>
> >><br />
> > _______________________________________________<br />
> > LLVM Developers mailing list<br />
> > <a
href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br
/>
> > <a
href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br
/>
> <br />
> _______________________________________________<br />
> LLVM Developers mailing list<br />
> <a
href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br
/>
> <a
href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br
/>
> _______________________________________________<br />
> LLVM Developers mailing list<br />
> <a
href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br
/>
> <a
href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br
/>
<br />

</blockquote></div></div>

</blockquote></div><br></div>

On the Mach-O side, Juergen attempted to land a patch to support
reading/writing TBD files (https://reviews.llvm.org/D53945), but he ran
into some trouble with the builders so the change was reverted. I'm
assuming it will pop back up when the builder errors are fixed, though I
don't know when that would be.

For the ELF side, the YAML reader/writer and the ELF-specific tool that
utilizes it have both landed (https://reviews.llvm.org/D53051 and
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55352). There's a stack of changes up for review
starting at D55352 that add support for reading binaries into the internal
representation (that can then be written to YAML).


On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 5:17 PM John Ericson <john.ericson at
obsidian.systems>
wrote:
> Maybe LLD is lagging behind, but is the TAPI stuff that's landed close
> enough to the original such that Apple cctools could be modified to use it?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> On Dec 30, 2018 6:09 PM, Jake Ehrlich <jakehehrlich at google.com>
wrote:
>
> Some patches have landed and several are up for review but there's
nothing
> 100% working where you can use it today. It's an ongoing effort. I
think
> linking with MachO is a bit far off at the moment but Jurgen would know
> more. It's also my understanding the the MachO linker is lagging a bit
> behind in terms of what it can actually manage to link compared to the ELF
> and COFF linker anyhow so it might not be the best option for you any how.
>
> Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 11:54 PM Moritz Angermann <moritz.angermann at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> did anything happen in this regard throughout the last three month? Are
> there
> any open diffs for the ELF part or the Mach-O part or even been merged
> already?
>
> What's the current state of say being able to read apples TBD files on
> linux when
> linking?
>
> Cheers,
>  Moritz
>
> > On Sep 29, 2018, at 2:33 AM, Jake Ehrlich via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Oof, I didn't think about Clang not being in the same place.
Perhaps we
> could put this in clang-tools-extra to solve that?
> >
> > As for the unification of the code bases. I was assuming we didn't
want
> to just throw a ton of code over the wall anyway so the merge was going to
> need to be reviewed chunk by chunk anyhow. Support for the two formats
> should be possible to add in parallel (although, I assume if anyone puts in
> the time the MachO support could race ahead). The hope would be that people
> familiar with Apple's tapi would catch any cases where something that
would
> make it difficult to merge code from Apple's tapi in during review.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:46 AM Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > I think that the idea of adding an llvm-tapi tool that is ELF-only and
> ignoring the earlier efforts to upstream Apple's tapi would be
unfortunate.
> Unifying the codebases after the fact could be challenging and complicated,
> especially since Apple's tapi relies on clang not just LLVM. That would
> mean a different source organization and layout from the start.
> >
> > -Chris
> >
> > > On Sep 27, 2018, at 2:42 PM, Armando Montanez via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Since the goal is to start llvm-tapi more or less from scratch, I
feel
> > > the best approach initially is to focus on the structure as a key
> > > point of feedback in initial reviews. Once the foundations are
set,
> > > integrating Mach-O TAPI in parallel with the ELF implementation
should
> > > be relatively straightforward. The features outside of stubbing
aren't
> > > as appealing for ELF, so I probably won't be working on
extending that
> > > functionality. With that being said, the overall design goal is
> > > generalization/abstraction where possible to welcome feature
parity in
> > > case it is eventually desired. I'm sure we'll run into
things that
> > > belong in the tool but end up being uniquely specialized, and it
will
> > > probably be best to address them on a case-by-case basis.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:42 PM Steven Wu <stevenwu at
apple.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Armando
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the detailed RFC and all the background research.
I think
> the concept is good and I will be happy to work with you to integrate the
> ELF implementation with Apple's MachO implementation and contribute it
> upstream. Do you have any proposal on how to integrate with Apple's
tapi
> and how should we collaborate?
> > >>
> > >> Also, Apple's tapi does more than just stubbing. Are you
interested
> to add ELF support for other features as well? (I guess it should not be
> too hard to do that).
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >>
> > >> Steven
> > >>
> > >>> On Sep 26, 2018, at 8:29 AM, Armando Montanez via
llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hello all,
> > >>>
> > >>> LLVM-TAPI seeks to decouple the necessary link-time
information for a
> > >>> dynamic shared object from the implementation of the
runtime object.
> > >>> This process will be referred to as dynamic shared object
(DSO)
> > >>> stubbing throughout this proposal. A number of projects
have
> > >>> implemented their own versions of shared object stubbing
for a
> variety
> > >>> of reasons related to improving the overall linking
experience. This
> > >>> functionality is absent from LLVM despite how close the
practice is
> to
> > >>> LLVM’s domain. The goal of this project would be to
produce a library
> > >>> for LLVM that not only provides a means for DSO stubbing,
but also
> > >>> gives meaningful insight into the contents of these stubs
and how
> they
> > >>> change. I’ve collected a few example instances of object
stubbing as
> > >>> part of larger tools and the key benefits that resulted
from them:
> > >>>
> > >>> - Apple’s TAPI [1]: Stubbing used to reduce SDK size and
improve
> build times.
> > >>> - Oracle’s Solaris OS linker [2]: Stubbing used to
improve build
> > >>> times, and improve robustness of build system (against
dependency
> > >>> cycles and race conditions).
> > >>> - Google’s Bazel [3]: Stubbing used to improve build
times.
> > >>> - Google’s Fuchsia [4] [5]: Stubbing used to improve
build times.
> > >>> - Android NDK: Stubbing used to reduce size of native
sdk, control
> > >>> exported symbols, and improve build times.
> > >>>
> > >>> Somewhat tangentially, a tool called libabigail [6]
provides
> utilities
> > >>> for tracking changes relevant to ELF files in a
meaningful way. One
> of
> > >>> libabigai’s tools provides very detailed textual XML
representations
> > >>> of objects, which is especially useful in the absence of
a
> preexisting
> > >>> textual representation of shared objects’ exposed
interfaces. Glibc
> > >>> [7] and libc++ [8] have made an effort to address this in
their own
> > >>> ways by using scripts to produce textual representations
of object
> > >>> interfaces. This functionality makes it significantly
easier to
> > >>> analyze and control symbol visibility, though the
existing solutions
> > >>> are quite bespoke. Controlling these symbols can have an
implicit
> > >>> benefit of reducing binary size by pruning visible
symbols, but the
> > >>> more critical feature is being able to easily view and
edit the
> > >>> exposed symbols in the first place. Using human-readable
stubs
> > >>> addresses the issues of DSO analysis and control without
requiring
> > >>> highly specialized tools. This does not strive to replace
tools
> > >>> altogether; it just makes small tasks significantly more
> approachable.
> > >>>
> > >>> llvm-tapi would strive to be an intersection between a
means to
> > >>> produce and link against stubs, and providing tools that
offer more
> > >>> control and insight into the public interfaces of DSOs.
More
> > >>> fundamentally, llvm-tapi would introduce a library to
generate and
> > >>> ingest human-readable stubs from DSOs to address these
issues
> directly
> > >>> in LLVM. Overall, this idea is most similar to the vein
of Apple’s
> > >>> TAPI, as the original TAPI also uses human-readable
stubs.
> > >>>
> > >>> In general, llvm-tapi should:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. Produce human-readable text files from dynamic shared
objects that
> > >>> are concise, readable, and contain everything required
for linking
> > >>> that can’t be implicitly derived.
> > >>> 2. Produce linkable files from said human readable text
files.
> > >>> 3. Provide tools to track and control the exposed
interfaces of
> object files.
> > >>> 4. Integrate well with LLVM’s existing tools.
> > >>> 5. Strive to enable integration of the original TAPI code
for Mach-O
> support.
> > >>>
> > >>> There are a number of key benefits to using stubs and
text-based
> > >>> application binary interfaces such as:
> > >>> - Reducing the size of dynamic shared objects used
exclusively for
> linking.
> > >>> - The ability to avoid re-linking an object when its
dependencies’
> > >>> exposed interfaces do not change but their implementation
does (which
> > >>> happens frequently).
> > >>> - Simplicity of viewing a diff for a changed DSO
interface.
> > >>> A large number of other use cases exist; this would open
up the floor
> > >>> for a variety of other tools and future work as the
concept is rather
> > >>> generic.
> > >>>
> > >>> The proposed YAML format would be analogous to Apple’s
.tbd format
> but
> > >>> differ in a few ways to support ELF object types. An
example would be
> > >>> as follows:
> > >>>
> > >>> --- !tapi-tbe-v1
> > >>> soname: someobj.so
> > >>> architecture: aarch64
> > >>> symbols:
> > >>> - name: fish
> > >>>  type: object
> > >>>  size: 48
> > >>> - name: foobar
> > >>>  type: function
> > >>>  warning-text: “deprecated in SOMEOBJ_1.3”
> > >>> - name: printf
> > >>>  type: function
> > >>> - name: rndfunc
> > >>>  type: function
> > >>>  undefined: true
> > >>> ...
> > >>>
> > >>> (Note that this doesn’t account for version sets, but
such
> > >>> functionality can be included in a later version.)
> > >>>
> > >>> Most of the fields are self-explanatory, with size not
being relevant
> > >>> to function symbols, and warning text being purely
optional. One
> > >>> reason this departs from .tbd format is to make diffs
much easier:
> > >>> sorting symbols alphabetically on individual lines makes
it much more
> > >>> obvious which symbols are added, removed, or modified.
Despite the
> > >>> differences, the desire is for llvm-tapi to be structured
such that
> > >>> integrating Apple’s Mach-O TAPI will be plausible and
welcomed. Prior
> > >>> discussion [9] indicated interest in integrating Apple
TAPI into
> LLVM,
> > >>> so I’d definitely like to leave that door open and
encourage that in
> > >>> the future.
> > >>>
> > >>> I feel the best place to start this is as a library to
best
> facilitate
> > >>> integration into other areas of LLVM, later wrapping it
in a
> > >>> standalone tool and eventually considering direct
integration into
> > >>> LLD. The tool will initially support basic generation of
.tbe and
> stub
> > >>> files from .tbe or ELF. This should give enough
functionality for
> > >>> manually checking shared object interface diffs, as well
as having
> > >>> access to linkable stubs. The goal is for the tool to
eventually
> > >>> provide additional functionality such as compatibility
checking, but
> > >>> that’s a ways into the future.shared
> > >>>
> > >>> There’s multiple options for integrating llvm-tapi to
work with LLD;
> > >>> LLD could directly use llvm-tapi to produce and ingest
.tbe files
> > >>> directly, or llvm-tapi could be used to produce stubs
that LLD can be
> > >>> taught to use. From a technical standpoint, these are not
mutually
> > >>> exclusive. This step is a ways down the road, but is
definitely a
> > >>> high-priority goal.
> > >>>
> > >>> I’m interested to hear your thoughts and feedback on
this.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best,
> > >>> Armando
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> [1] https://github.com/ributzka/tapi
> > >>> [2]
> https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E23824_01/html/819-0690/chapter2-22.html
> > >>> [3]
>
https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/user-manual.html#flag--interface_shared_objects
> > >>> [4]
> https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/zircon/+/master/scripts/shlib-symbols
> > >>> [5]
> https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/zircon/+/master/scripts/dso-abi.h
> > >>> [6] https://sourceware.org/libabigail/
> > >>> [7]
>
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=scripts/abilist.awk;h=bad7c3807e478e50e63c3834aa8969214bdd6f63;hb=HEAD
> > >>> [8]
> https://github.com/llvm-mirror/libcxx/blob/master/utils/sym_extract.py
> > >>> [9]
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2018-April/thread.html#57576
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> > >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190103/7188732b/attachment-0001.html>