search for: createbinari

Even if I turn to -O0 [in other words, no optimisation passes at all], it takes the same amount of time. The time is spent in 12.94% lacsap lacsap [.] llvm::SDNode::use_iterator::operator== 7.68% lacsap lacsap [.] llvm::SDNode::use_iterator::operator* 7.53% lacsap lacsap [.] llvm::SelectionDAG::ReplaceAllUsesOfValueWith 7.28% lacsap

Hey, LLVM has logic to parse ELF and PE binaries using `llvm::object::createBinary`. I tried to search in the codebase to see if there's a possibility to add/remove sections after parsing a binary and re-write the binary to another location. Basically, like what llvm-objcopy does. Can you point me to the right classes to look into, if this is something that LLVM has? Many thanks Joseph

Hi everyone, I’m currently playing with the clang driver and I encounter a strange bug. It occurs when I used the getSize function from the SymbolRef class. On iOS, the number returned is not always correct (some function have the right size). Sadly, This is my code (at the end of the main function into driver.cpp) : #### ErrorOr<OwningBinary<Binary>> BinaryOrErr =

I've definitely "run into this problem", and I would very much love to remove my kludges [that are incomplete, because I keep finding places where I need to modify the code-gen to "fix" the same problem - this is probably par for the course from a complete amateur compiler writer and someone that has only spent the last 14 months working (as a hobby) with LLVM]. So whilst

I work on a linux program with restricted RSS limits (a couple hundred MB), and one of the things this program does is symbolication. Ideally, we'd like to use llvm-symbolizer for this symbolication (because we get things like function inlining that we can't get from cheaper symbolizers), but for large binaries, the memory usage gets pretty huge. Based on some memory profiling, it looks

On 2020-08-13, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: >Sounds like the llvm-objcopy source code (llvm/tools/llvm-objcopy) is >probably a good place to start. > >On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:11 AM Joseph via llvm-dev ><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hey, >> >> LLVM has logic to parse ELF and PE binaries using `llvm::object::createBinary`. I tried to

    Hello all,     I develop a project based on Clang where I need to read all symbols from a library. For symbols libraries (.a/.lib) I use the following code:     auto &FM = C->getFileManager();     ...     auto Buffer = FM.getBufferForFile(FileEntry);     ...     auto Object = llvm::object::ObjectFile::createObjectFile(Buffer);     This code crashes at the last line if the file in

Yes definitely, testing a small piece of code like the GlobPattern::create() example, it would mostly indicate missing unit tests or insufficient test data. In contrast to unit tests, however, it can also verify correct handling of errors passed between function call hierarchies in more complex scenarios. For this I should point to the other example in the code, where it's applied to

Hi Stefan, David, This is very interesting stuff - it adds a dimension of error security that Error/Expected can't provide on their own. I think it would be interesting to try to build a tool around this. Did you identify many cases where "real work" (in your example, the nullptr dereference" was being done in an error branch? My suspicion is that that should be rare, but that

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:19 AM Stefan Gränitz <stefan.graenitz at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Lang, hi David, thanks for looking into this. > > > > Did you identify many cases where "real work" (in your example, the > nullptr dereference" was being done in an error branch? > > In my own code yes, not in LLVM ;) I'd like to run it on a large example,

2015-08-17 11:26 GMT-07:00 Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>: > Hi, > > On Aug 17, 2015, at 12:13 AM, deadal nix via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > 2015-08-16 23:21 GMT-07:00 David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com>: > >> >> >> Because a solution which doesn't generalize is not a very powerful

Hi All, I've been thinking lately about how to improve LLVM's error model and error reporting. A lack of good error reporting in Orc and MCJIT has forced me to spend a lot of time investigating hard-to-debug errors that could easily have been identified if we provided richer error information to the client, rather than just aborting. Kevin Enderby has made similar observations about the

Hello, this is a call for feedback: opinions, improvements, testers.. I use the support classes Expected<T> and ErrorOr<T> quite often recently and I like the concept a lot! Thanks Lang btw! However, from time to time I found issues in the execution paths of my error cases and got annoyed by their naturally low test coverage. So I started sketching a test that runs all error paths

Hi, I would like to examine the implications you mention in more detail. (1) Symbol address According to the ELF standard, in a symbol table entry st_value means: "In relocatable files, st_value holds a section offset for a defined symbol. That is, st_value is an offset from the beginning of the section that st_shndx identifies." (*) Therefore, when queried about a symbol's

2012/1/23 Bendersky, Eli <eli.bendersky at intel.com>: > Hi, > > I would like to examine the implications you mention in more detail. > Thank you! > (1) Symbol address > According to the ELF standard, in a symbol table entry st_value means: "In relocatable files, st_value holds a section offset for a defined symbol. That is, > st_value is an offset from the

Hi all, I'm using the MC framework for a project, and while updating to latest trunk (r148672) encountered the following issue: It seems that SymbolRef::getAddress and SymbolRef::getFileOffset have been changed to add the symbol's offset to the offset of the containing section? This has the following implications: To get the /actual/ fileoffset, I now need to do: Symbol.getFileOffset()

Hi Mehdi, > I’m not sure to understand this claim? You are supposed to be able to extend and subclass the type of diagnostics? (I remember doing it for an out-of-tree LLVM-based project). You can subclass diagnostics, but subclassing (on its own) only lets you change the behaviour of the diagnostic/error itself. What we need, and what this patch supplies, is a way to choose a particular

Hi James, > It seems to me that "[[clang::warn_unused_result]] class TypedError" is probably sufficient for ensuring people check a status return value; I'm not sure runtime checking really brings much additional value there. I see the attribute as complimentary. The runtime check provides a stronger guarantee: the error cannot be dropped on any path, rather than just "the

Hi Mehdi, > For a generic error class it is not an option indeed, but I was looking at it in the context of LLVM internal use, so just like our RTTI is not an option for “generic RTTI” but fits our need, we could (not should) do the same with ErrorHandling. Definitely. If this was LLVM only there'd be a strong case for using the existing RTTI system. The reason for the new RTTI system is

Hi Mehdi, > If you subclass a diagnostic right now, isn’t the RTTI information available to the handler, which can then achieve the same dispatching / custom handling per type of diagnostic? > (I’m not advocating the diagnostic system, which I found less convenient to use than what you are proposing) I have to confess I haven't looked at the diagnostic classes closely. I'll take a