search for: ccoutant

> On Jan 7, 2018, at 5:02 PM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the options >> would be scary. I agree that we should whitelist the options, and am of the >> opinion that we should force validation on the linker side (use of any >> option whi...

...code for each different linker their object is to be consumed by, nor does the compiler have to know about the different possible linkers. James On 9 January 2018 at 05:15, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 2018, at 5:02 PM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the > options > >> would be scary. I agree that we should whitelist the options, and am > of the > >> opinion that we should force validation on the linker side (u...

Sri and I have been working on this over the past few months, and we've made some good progress that we'd like to share and get feedback on. Our work is based on the 'experimental-relr' prototype from Cary that is available at 'users/ccoutant/experimental-relr' branch in the binutils repository [1], and was described earlier in this thread: https://sourceware.org/ml/gnu-gabi/2017-q2/msg00003.html We've taken the '.relr.dyn' section from Cary's prototype, and implemented a custom encoding to compactly represent the l...

> We've taken the '.relr.dyn' section from Cary's prototype, and implemented a > custom encoding to compactly represent the list of offsets. We're calling the > new compressed section '.relrz.dyn' (for relocations-relative-compressed). I'd suggest just using .relr.dyn -- your encoding is straightforward enough that I'd just make that the standard

> On Jan 5, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> In general I'm in favor of the proposal. Defining a generic way to convey >>> some information from the compiler to the linker is useful, and it looks >>> like it is just a historical reason that the ELF lacks the feature at the >&...

On Jan 6, 2018 12:05 PM, "Saleem Abdulrasool via llvm-dev" < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: On Jan 5, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail.com> wrote: In general I'm in favor of the proposal. Defining a generic way to convey some information from the compiler to the linker is useful, and it looks like it is just a historical reason that the ELF lacks the feature at the moment. This is a scenario in which the feature...

...2018, at 4:33 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 6, 2018 12:05 PM, "Saleem Abdulrasool via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> On Jan 5, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail.com <mailto:ccoutant at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>>> In general I'm in favor of the proposal. Defining a generic way to convey >>>> some information from the compiler to the linker is useful, and it looks >>>> like it is just a historic...

> But I'm very much against allowing any sort of option that specifies full > paths to be embedded, including "-L". Typically, object files are > location-independent -- if you want to copy them to another system and run > the linker there (with an appropriate sysroot path), that's going to work > perfectly fine. But as soon as you start allowing path options to be

...e that adding a new section type shouldn’t break compatibility with older linkers? > James > > On 9 January 2018 at 05:15, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org <mailto:compnerd at compnerd.org>> wrote: > > > > On Jan 7, 2018, at 5:02 PM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail.com <mailto:ccoutant at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > >> I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the options > >> would be scary. I agree that we should whitelist the options, and am of the > >> opinion that we should force valid...

+llvm-dev Discussion here: https://sourceware.org/ml/gnu-gabi/2017-q2/msg00000.html On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde <hegdesmailbox at gmail.com> wrote: > On 02-May-2017 12:05 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> On 05/01/2017 08:28 PM, Suprateeka R Hegde wrote: >>> So the ratio shows ~96% is RELATIVE reloc. And only ~4% others. This is >>> not the

On 19.11.2020 03:21, Cary Coutant wrote: >>> If the .debug_str section *by itself* exceeds 4GB, then yes any string >>> with a 32-bit reference to it must be in the first 4GB. Strings that >>> have only 64-bit references to them can be sorted to the end of the >>> section, if necessary. I wouldn't think anyone guarantees or cares >>> about the

Hi, I am still struggling with my optimized/speedup build of llvm-toolchain v3.8.1. Here: Enable LTO, PGO, optimized-TableGen, split-DWARF and build with GNU/gold and LLVMgold-plugin. The objcopy (binutils v2.22) here on Ubuntu/precise AMD64 does not support '--extract-dwo'. My build fails with... /usr/bin/objcopy: unrecognized option '--extract-dwo'. Now, I did a full build of

> I think we all agree that blindly allowing the linker to honor the options > would be scary. I agree that we should whitelist the options, and am of the > opinion that we should force validation on the linker side (use of any > option which the linker doesn't support in this form can be fatal). > Starting small is the best way, with `-l` and `-L` as a starting point. I >

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail.com> wrote: >> While adding a 'stride' field is definitely an improvement over simple >> delta+count encoding, it doesn't compare well against the bitmap based >> encoding. >> >> I took a look inside the encoding for the Vim binary. There are so...

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Roland McGrath <roland at hack.frob.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:50 PM Rahul Chaudhry via gnu-gabi <gnu-gabi at sourceware.org> wrote: >> >> A simple combination of delta-encoding and run_length-encoding is one of the >> first schemes we experimented with (32-bit entries with 24-bit 'delta' and an >>

>> In general I'm in favor of the proposal. Defining a generic way to convey >> some information from the compiler to the linker is useful, and it looks >> like it is just a historical reason that the ELF lacks the feature at the >> moment. >> >> This is a scenario in which the feature is useful: when you include >> math.h, a compiler (which is driven

Adding llvm-dev as that might be a more suitable audience for this discussion. (& I know Lang's been playing around with the same problem in the Orc JIT, so adding him too) Is there any basis/reason to believe that the .X suffix is a better, more principled one than straight X? Is that documented somewhere as a thing the demangling tools will ignore? On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:06 PM,

> On Jan 6, 2018, at 6:55 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org <mailto:compnerd at compnerd.org>> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:30 AM Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com <mailto:ruiu at google.com>> wrote: > Thank you for starting the discussion thread. >

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:30 AM Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Thank you for starting the discussion thread. > > In general I'm in favor of the proposal. Defining a generic way to convey > some information from the compiler to the linker is useful, and it looks > like it is just a historical reason that the ELF lacks the feature at the > moment. > > This