search for: coffobjectfiles

The section is .text, so I assume it’s got IMAGE_SCM_CNT_CODE set. The problem is the symbol is marked (read & execute), but the test is (read & !write), so the symbol gets marked as ST_Data instead of ST_Other. From: David Majnemer [mailto:david.majnemer at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 5:44 PM To: Ted Woodward Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev]

I'm working on adding data detection to llvm-objdump, so it prints out raw data for symbols with type SymbolRef::ST_Data instead of disassembling them. This causes llvm/test/MC/ARM/Windows/mov32t-range.s to fail, because the symbol "truncation" comes back as SymbolRef::ST_Data, and the code gets dumped as bytes instead of disassembled. I traced the problem back to

Hi, The attached patch does a few separate things. I can split them up if you like but it's pretty small. - Adds support for sniffing PE/COFF files on win32 (.exe and .dll) which are COFF files that have an MS-DOS compatibility stub on the front of them. - Fixes a bug in the COFFObjectFile's support for the Microsoft COFF extension for long symbol names, wherein it

Is it possible to write a .pdb file containing the debug info stored in a COFFObjectFile once the NotifyObjectEmitted is triggered by the JIT compiler ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180308/3c25cddd/attachment.html>

Hi Vivien, I'm not familiar with Windows development, but I believe you could dump the object file to disk then run LINK.EXE to produce the PDB. Alternatively, I think LLD can also produce PDB files (Rui -- is that right?), in which case you may be able to use that. Is the aim to be able to debug JIT'd code? Which debugger do you plan to use? -- Lang. On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 4:23 AM,

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 7:00 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Vivien, > > I'm not familiar with Windows development, but I believe you could dump > the object file to disk then run LINK.EXE to produce the PDB. > Alternatively, I think LLD can also produce PDB files (Rui -- is that > right?), in which case you may be able to use that. > Yes, lld can

Hi, thanks for the answers, i tried to use LINK.EXE to produce a pdb, but unfortunately, it produces an empty pdb (i have debug symbols in the dumped .obj because I can see them with PEViewer). It is probably because i have undefined symbols, which is logical because i'm dumping machine code which points to running native code. I still dont understand why LINK.EXE is not able to produce a

I'm sorry but I don't think I understand the question. But if you can't produce a pdb using MSVC, it is hard to imagine that only lld can do, unless MSVC linker has a bug. On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:07 PM Vivien Millet <vivien.millet at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, thanks for the answers, i tried to use LINK.EXE to produce a pdb, but > unfortunately, it produces an empty pdb

Hi, I'm currently working my way through the tutorial with LLVM 3.9.1 on Windows (finished chapter 4) and stumbled over a few things which could be improved: - "LLVMContext" does not exist as a variable -> "TheContext" - Chapter 3: 5 times - Chapter 4: 1 time - Chapter 5: 4 times - Chapter 6: 2 times - Chapter 7: 2 times 3.4. Function Code

It’s pretty intermittent at the moment…sometimes I get the relocation overflow issue, sometimes I get another issue about BSS sections having no contents. The source code to reproduce either is simple: #include <iostream> int main (int argc, char* argv[]) { } I’ve managed to reproduce the BSS section issue in clang consistently, and since that comes before terms of where it happens in

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 It's true that yaml2coff

Oops, sorry for the spam. That last comment was incorrect. It’s IMAGE_REL_AMD64_REL32 not _5 > On 5 Oct 2015, at 17:26, Joshua Gerrard <joshua.gerrard at roli.com> wrote: > > Additional info: when the relocation issue does occur the relocation type is IMAGE_REL_AMD64_REL32_5 > >> On 5 Oct 2015, at 17:16, Joshua Gerrard <joshua.gerrard at roli.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

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

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

Hi David, Sorry, I forget to attach the valgrind dump to this. I was not sure if my implementation was ok, so I wanted to ask if I've done something wrong first. Process terminating with default action of signal 11 (SIGSEGV) Access not within mapped region at address 0xB at 0x54F4516: llvm::object::COFFObjectFile::moveSectionNext(llvm::object::DataRefImpl&) const

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, >

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% >

That's great news, thanks! If I can be of any help, let me know. :) I'll see if I can reduce the example for the relocation issue whilst you're at it. Regards, Joshua -- Joshua Gerrard JUCE Software Developer *ROLI’s **award-winning* <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/design/31520/the-seaboard-grand-piano-wins-designs-of-the-year-2014-award.html>* Seaboard GRAND, celebrated

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