Displaying 20 results from an estimated 346 matches for "ld64".
2015 Sep 04
5
RFC: LTO should use -disable-llvm-verifier
...t;>>>> driver to *always* pass the option to the linker just in case we are
> >>>>>>>> doing LTO. Is this reasonable?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Also, I realized that passing `-mllvm -disable-llvm-verifier` to ld64
> >>>>>>>> is redundant... so I'm thinking `-mllvm -disable-verify`. Make
> >>>>>>>> sense?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> *sigh* Reasons to hate the driver interface again...
> >>>&...
2015 Sep 04
2
RFC: LTO should use -disable-llvm-verifier
...noasserts
> >> >>>> driver to *always* pass the option to the linker just in case we are
> >> >>>> doing LTO. Is this reasonable?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Also, I realized that passing `-mllvm -disable-llvm-verifier` to ld64
> >> >>>> is redundant... so I'm thinking `-mllvm -disable-verify`. Make
> >> >>>> sense?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> *sigh* Reasons to hate the driver interface again...
> >> >>>>
> >> &g...
2017 Jun 06
4
LLD support for ld64 mach-o linker synthesised symbols
Hi Folks,
I have a question regarding LLD support for ld64 mach-o linker synthesised symbols. I did a quick search of the LLD source and I can not find support for them so before I start trying to use lld I thought I would ask.
I have found a couple of cases where they are essential. i.e. where there is no other way to get the required information, such a...
2020 May 07
2
Ld64.lld cannot find Foundation framework
...M lld.
> On 7 May 2020, at 19:21, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:54 PM Edmund Furse <edmund.furse at imitation.uk.com <mailto:edmund.furse at imitation.uk.com>> wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. Two questions:
> 1). Will ld64.lld be fixed in LLVM v11.0 and when is this likely to be?
>
> Likely won't be fixed that soon.
>
> 2). You mention Apple’s linker, by which I assume you mean GNU’s ld.
> Is it possible to get a binary version of ld (preferably that does not use other things from /usr/bin)?
>...
2020 May 07
2
Ld64.lld cannot find Foundation framework
Dear LLVM community I need some help please.
I want to use LLVM's clang and lld within a MacOSX sandboxed app. This is because sandboxing does not allow calls to /usr/bin/clang.
The clang binary works fine to compile a file, but ld64.lld comes up with the error "cannot find framework".
However similar arguments using /usr/bin/ld instead of ld64.lld works fine.
Here are the details:
Here is the call using /usr/bin/ld:
/usr/bin/ld HelloObjC.o -o HelloObjC -v -sdk_version 10.14.0 -macosx_version_min 10.14.0 -demangle...
2017 Jun 06
2
LLD support for ld64 mach-o linker synthesised symbols
Hi Rui,
The motivation would be primarily that LLVM/Clang/LLD are community projects such that if I or someone in the community added support for e.g. symbol aliases, then it could be reviewed and potentially merged. ld64 on the other hand does not have a community process for patch submission and code review that I am aware of so its unlikely that if someone from the community came up with a patch to support aliases that it would be merged.
In that case I might check out the LLD code and try linking “x86_64-xnu-mu...
2017 Sep 07
2
[ThinLTO] static library failure with object files with the same name
Hi Johan,
ld64 only calls functions from llvm/include/llvm-c/lto.h (defined
in llvm/tools/lto/lto.cpp)
For instance ThinLTOCodeGenerator::addModule is called
through thinlto_codegen_add_module().
Apple hasn't released the code for ld64 in Xcode 9 yet, did you check if it
is fixed in Xcode 9?
(I think I rem...
2020 May 07
2
Ld64.lld cannot find Foundation framework
Thanks for your reply. Two questions:
1). Will ld64.lld be fixed in LLVM v11.0 and when is this likely to be?
2). You mention Apple’s linker, by which I assume you mean GNU’s ld.
Is it possible to get a binary version of ld (preferably that does not use other things from /usr/bin)?
Thanks
> On 7 May 2020, at 12:26, James Y Knight <jyknight...
2015 Sep 04
2
RFC: LTO should use -disable-llvm-verifier
...have to change the noasserts
>> >>>> driver to *always* pass the option to the linker just in case we are
>> >>>> doing LTO. Is this reasonable?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Also, I realized that passing `-mllvm -disable-llvm-verifier` to ld64
>> >>>> is redundant... so I'm thinking `-mllvm -disable-verify`. Make
>> >>>> sense?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> *sigh* Reasons to hate the driver interface again...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I guess this is...
2017 Sep 11
2
[ThinLTO] static library failure with object files with the same name
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Johan Engelen <jbc.engelen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Johan,
>>
>> ld64 only calls functions from llvm/include/llvm-c/lto.h (defined
>> in llvm/tools/lto/lto.cpp)
>>
>> For instance ThinLTOCodeGenerator::addModule is called
>> through thinlto_codegen_add_module().
>>
>> Apple hasn't released the code for ld64 in Xcode 9 yet, did...
2013 Oct 22
4
[LLVMdev] ld: Assertion failed: (memberIndex != 0), function makeObjectFileForMember
...de project with Xcode 4.6.3 (4H1503). The project has dependencies on, and links against, an Objective-C static library Xcode project, and a C++ static library Xcode project. All are using using LLVM 4.2.
ld: Assertion failed: (memberIndex != 0), function makeObjectFileForMember, file /SourceCache/ld64/ld64-136/src/ld/parsers/archive_file.cpp, line 354.
0 0x10fa41098 __assert_rtn + 144
1 0x10fa678af archive::File<x86_64>::makeObjectFileForMember(archive::File<x86_64>::Entry const*) const + 1149
2 0x10fa670fd archive::File<x86_64>::forEachAtom(ld::File::AtomHandler&) c...
2020 May 26
2
Emitting aligned nlist_64 structures for Mach-O in MC
I looked into this further. ld64 has a macho_nlist abstraction over the various underlying nlist structures [1]. On x86-64, the P::getP referenced in n_value will resolve to [2], which in turn goes to [3], which calls OSReadLittleInt64. On a little endian machine, OSReadLittleEndian just calls _OSReadInt64 [4], which in turn does...
2017 Sep 06
3
[ThinLTO] static library failure with object files with the same name
...rote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Johan,
>> >
>> > Right, per the bug this is fixed in lld (and was already handled in
>> > gold-plugin), but I guess not in ld64. Note that lld and gold-plugin use the
>> > new LTO API, while ld64 (and probably other linkers) are still using the
>> > legacy libLTO (which is what ThinLTOCodeGenerator.cpp is part of). Fixing it
>> > in the location you propose could work for all legacy libLTO users....
2017 Sep 17
2
[ThinLTO] static library failure with object files with the same name
...>
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Johan Engelen <jbc.engelen at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Johan,
>>>>
>>>> ld64 only calls functions from llvm/include/llvm-c/lto.h (defined
>>>> in llvm/tools/lto/lto.cpp)
>>>>
>>>> For instance ThinLTOCodeGenerator::addModule is called
>>>> through thinlto_codegen_add_module().
>>>>
>>>> Apple hasn'...
2018 Feb 14
2
ThinLTO and linkonce_odr + unnamed_addr
...default in GlobalOpts
>
> 1. When a symbol is linkonce_odr hidden unnamed_addr, it emits both '.private_extern' and '.weak_def_can_be_hidden' asm directives on macho platform. There result of that is .private_extern will win so this is essentially linkonce_odr hidden.
> 2. ld64 does treat these two type of symbols differently. For example, ld64 will deduplicate all the can_be_hidden symbols to reduce code size. This can't be achieved when the symbols is private external.
For others' context, this deduplication in ld64 will effectively merge (e.g.) std::vector<...
2007 Jun 27
2
Loading problem with XML_1.9
...e loading problem with XML_1.9 under 64 bit
R2.3.1, which I got from http://R.research.att.com/.
XML_1.9 works fine under 32 bit R2.5.0. I thought that
could be installation problem, and I tried
install.packages or biocLite, every time the package
installed fine, except some warning messages below:
ld64 warning: in /usr/lib/libxml2.dylib, file does not
contain requested architecture
ld64 warning: in /usr/lib/libz.dylib, file does not
contain requested architecture
ld64 warning: in /usr/lib/libiconv.dylib, file does
not contain requested architecture
ld64 warning: in /usr/lib/libz.dylib, file does...
2018 Feb 16
2
ThinLTO and linkonce_odr + unnamed_addr
...39; asm directives on macho platform. There result of that is .private_extern will win so this is essentially linkonce_odr hidden.
What do those directives mean? I assume .weak_def_can_be_hidden is the
"you can drop this from the symbol table", but .private_extern I am not
sure.
> 2. ld64 does treat these two type of symbols differently. For example, ld64 will deduplicate all the can_be_hidden symbols to reduce code size. This can't be achieved when the symbols is private external.
If I understand you correctly, ld64 will deduplicate
std::vector<int>::push_back and std::v...
2013 Jan 05
1
[LLVMdev] LLVM triple and Apple ld64 behavior
Hello,
I wanted to know about the reasons Apple dropped the support for "arm" target in its ld64. After searching in the sourcecode I found out that ld64 supports armv4 armv5 armv6 armv7 and its subtypes. The code shows that -force_cpusubtype_ALL for ARM targets is no more supported in "src/ld/options.cpp") and static const ARMSubType ARMSubTypes[] doesn't include "arm"...
2018 Feb 16
0
ThinLTO and linkonce_odr + unnamed_addr
...t;
> > 1. When a symbol is linkonce_odr hidden unnamed_addr, it emits both
> '.private_extern' and '.weak_def_can_be_hidden' asm directives on macho
> platform. There result of that is .private_extern will win so this is
> essentially linkonce_odr hidden.
> > 2. ld64 does treat these two type of symbols differently. For example,
> ld64 will deduplicate all the can_be_hidden symbols to reduce code size.
> This can't be achieved when the symbols is private external.
>
> For others' context, this deduplication in ld64 will effectively merge
>...
2017 Jun 07
3
LLD support for ld64 mach-o linker synthesised symbols
...ichael Clark <michaeljclark at mac.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rui,
>
> The motivation would be primarily that LLVM/Clang/LLD are community
> projects such that if I or someone in the community added support for e.g.
> symbol aliases, then it could be reviewed and potentially merged. ld64 on
> the other hand does not have a community process for patch submission and
> code review that I am aware of so its unlikely that if someone from the
> community came up with a patch to support aliases that it would be merged.
>
> In that case I might check out the LLD code and tr...