search for: elftypes

E.g. Is it intended to be allowed to call lld::elf::link in 2 different threads at the same time? Follows is an example Valgrind error I ran into when doing the above. I'll try putting a global resource lock on invoking LLD and see if it solves the problem. ==5467== Invalid write of size 8 ==5467== at 0x525509: llvm::DenseMapBase<llvm::DenseMap<llvm::CachedHashStringRef, int,

Hi Andrew, LLD relies on various bits of global state which are manipulated during the link, so I wouldn't expect it to be thread safe at that level, although it does attempt to reset that global state at the start of each call to link(), so it should be callable sequentially. Regards, James On 25 July 2018 at 02:37, Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

The asan bootstrap bot is unhappy with lld. Rui, os someone, please take a look. http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64- linux-bootstrap/builds/138/steps/check-lld%20asan/logs/stdio ==26011==ERROR: LeakSanitizer: detected memory leaks Direct leak of 184 byte(s) in 1 object(s) allocated from: #0 0x72fab0 in operator new(unsigned long)

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> The asan bootstrap bot is unhappy with lld. >> Rui, os someone, please take a look. >> >>

Folks, I'd like propose a new error message format for LLD so that error message for undefined or duplicated symbols are more informative and easy to read. Below are examples of the current error messages (note that characters in red are actually red on terminal): *Undefined symbols* /ssd/clang/bin/ld.lld: error: /ssd/llvm-project/lld/ELF/Writer.cpp:207: undefined symbol

On 3/29/17 12:53 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev wrote: > Put it all together, the following error messages should work for > everybody. I'll create a patch to make this change and send it for > review. Thank you guys for the inputs! > > > Undefined symbol error: > > bin/ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: >

I am late on the thread, but I just want to say that the new format looks awesome! Thanks, Rafael On 29 March 2017 at 15:18, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > My bad. I intended this. > > Undefined symbol error: > > bin/ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: > lld::elf::EhFrameSection<llvm::object::ELFType<(llvm::support::endianness)0, >

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > I lile the idea of having it more structured and I think your suggested > format is the right direction. > > I think one principle should be that we assume that file names and symbol > names are "really long" (possibly wrapped by the terminal etc.). > Right. That's what we should

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 03/24/2017 11:42 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > On Mar 24, 2017 5:22 PM, "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > I figured you might consider moving the basenames of the filename earlier > in the diagnostic, something like: >

On Mar 24, 2017 5:22 PM, "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com> wrote: I figured you might consider moving the basenames of the filename earlier in the diagnostic, something like: bin/ld.lld: *error:* duplicate symbol: lld::elf::MipsGotSection::addEntry(lld::elf::SymbolBody&, long, lld::elf::RelExpr) *>>> defined at* Writer.cpp:38 in

I'm seeing a bunch of failures on AArch64 after updating this morning. These are NOT failing on x86-64. These all seem to be caused by segfaults (example backtrace below). Is anyone else seeing this? -David LLVM :: DebugInfo/symbolize-no-debug-str.test LLVM :: tools/gold/X86/comdat.ll LLVM :: tools/gold/X86/visibility.ll LLVM ::

...te: > I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head. The llvm-objcopy code > is for when you need to perform mutations primarily. A common mistake (well > a mistake in my opinion) I see is people wanting a one size fits all > solution when one doesn't exist (or perhaps rather, ELFTypes is as close as > we have). As long as we conclude that kind of mutative model fits well here > then we should proceed. That's what I left all the cryptic "if this really > fits into the llvm-objcopy model" messages. > > *From: *Alexander Shaposhnikov <alexander.v.sha...

Hi Jake, many thanks, yea, I have very similar feelings / thoughts. After some thinking it seems to me that this discussion/problem which I have brought up is, in fact, more relevant to the tools which really need a robust mutable model of an object file (like objcopy, strip, install_name_tool, etc), but the particular case of "lipo" might be simpler, I need to double check that / will