search for: _none

Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "_none".

Did you mean: none
2019 Apr 01
2
Symbols in 'llvm.used' stripped by --gc-sections
Hi all, The documentation of `@llvm.used` says: "If a symbol appears in the @llvm.used list, then the compiler, assembler, and linker are required to treat the symbol as if there is a reference to the symbol that it cannot see (which is why they have to be named)." We've always understood this as: the symbol will survive into the final executable, also when it is in its own
2018 Aug 23
2
[lld] avoid emitting PLT entries for ifuncs
In the context of support not only IFunc but DTrace, what kind of features do you want to add to lld, if you have a chance to implement it in the linker instead of a post-processing tool? I wonder if we can solve both of your problems. On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 1:33 AM Mark Johnston <markj at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:11:00AM -0400, Ed Maste wrote: > > On 22
2019 Dec 05
2
GC for defsym'd symbols in LLD
I have made some further investigation. My conclusion is that GNU ld does not do better than lld. Making the --defsym behavior ideal is difficult in the current framework. GNU ld has some unintended behaviors. ld.bfd a.o --defsym 'd=foo' --gc-sections -o a => GNU ld retains .text_foo ld.bfd a.o --defsym 'd=foo+3' --gc-sections -o a => GNU ld drops .text_foo ld.bfd a.o
2020 Nov 12
3
[LLD] Support DWARF64, debug_info "sorting"
...indicator * .debug_str_offsets references .debug_str: the first relocation (.debug_str offset) is a good indicator * ... So checking the first relocation is probably sufficient. Even if we miss something, we can adjust the heuristic, or rather let the compiler generate an artificial relocation (R_*_NONE), which will always work. >On one hand since this is only applicable for when DWARF64 is used, special option would be the way to go. Although the user will need to be aware of yet another LLD option. Maybe an error when relocations overflow occur can be modified to display this option along wi...
2016 Feb 11
5
issues with split llvm libraries and llvmpipe and failing to load library
Hey, So in Fedora rawhide we are now building llvm 3.7.1 into the lots of little shared libraries format. However I'm running into a major problem with the fact that sometimes dlclose isn't dropping all the LLVM libraries from the address space of the process. We have a sequence like this: a) X server asks mesa gbm library to init, it loads the kms_swrast_dri.so with
2020 Nov 11
3
[LLD] Support DWARF64, debug_info "sorting"
(Adding back Cc: which got dropped) > (Igor - I don't know what happened, but your email split the mail thread in gmail for me.) The problem is that https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146528.html does not have an In-Reply-To: header. Added Igor to the Cc: list. If we go down the route (sorting DWARF64 after DWARF32), compared with a lightweight parse, I'd prefer