search for: ldscripts

Hi all, I have been investigating linker scripts and the functionality needed to support them in lld. I have attached my findings about the usage of ldscripts. My findings have been collected from: - Reading all the GNU ld manual sections about linker scripts. - Looking at the GNU ld and gold source code. - Digging through a couple embedded programming tutorials. - Reading through all of the linker scripts in the Linux kernel tree. - Other random source...

...he Resolver is done and the atoms are handed to the ELF Writer to complete. -Nick On Dec 30, 2012, at 8:53 PM, Sean Silva wrote: > Hi all, I have been investigating linker scripts and the functionality > needed to support them in lld. I have attached my findings about the > usage of ldscripts. My findings have been collected from: > > - Reading all the GNU ld manual sections about linker scripts. > - Looking at the GNU ld and gold source code. > - Digging through a couple embedded programming tutorials. > - Reading through all of the linker scripts in the Linux kernel tr...

From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> As there is no need for an x86_64 linker script, the i386 one can be put in the core directory directly. This partially revert commit d8eede3f2a360163235fad222a0190cd7c5bef38 which splitted several linker scripts into i386 and x86_64 versions. Signed-off-by: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> --- core/Makefile |

16396:055d98aa2dd0 almost works but not quite. LDFLAGS_DIRECT means we end up with: gld -melf_i386 -nostdlib -N -Ttext 0x100000 -o hvmloader.tmp hvmloader.o mp_tables.o util.o smbios.o 32bitbios_support.o acpi/acpi.a Specifying a linker script and asking for -nostdlib is obviously contradictory. Removing $(LDFLAGS_DIRECT) fixes the problem. regards john

The Syslinux package in Debian (6.03+dfsg-14) Failed To Build From Source. Is there a better solution than [1]? Is this issue only relevant for Debian? Or, can it be found in other distros / cases too? Is it still relevant for current upstream Syslinux git master? TL;DR: The original report is about: "ldlinux.elf: Not enough room for program headers" The workaround that was

...ook into reading the Linker script which needs to be implemented. Thanks Shankar Easwaran On 12/30/2012 10:53 PM, Sean Silva wrote: > Hi all, I have been investigating linker scripts and the functionality > needed to support them in lld. I have attached my findings about the > usage of ldscripts. My findings have been collected from: > > - Reading all the GNU ld manual sections about linker scripts. > - Looking at the GNU ld and gold source code. > - Digging through a couple embedded programming tutorials. > - Reading through all of the linker scripts in the Linux kernel tre...

More recent versions of the GNU linker (>= 2.31) create a separate code "PT_LOAD" segment by default (as of https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=f6aec96dce1ddbd8961a3aa8a2925db2021719bb). Building syslinux EFI images with this -zseparate-code enabled creates broken EFI images, since efi/wrapper.c only copies the first PT_LOAD segment to the EFI. This patch adds

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > The SECTION and MEMORY seem doable in lld as part of the ELF > Writer. MEMORY and most aspects of SECTIONS are effectively syntax sugar and the rest of LLD doesn't need to even be aware of it; the ldscript language processor will desugar it. The same is true of many other linker script constructs that I

Hi vedant, The program didn't pass the checking "OF->getArch() != Triple(Arch).getArch()" loadBinaryFormat in CoverageMappingReader.cpp and returned an error. It's because "OF->getArch()" returned null and "Triple(Arch).getArch()" returned XXXX(name of my arch). The returned value of " OF->getArch()" is decided by "

Hi vedant, 1. The definition is from llvm/Supprot/ELF.h. But this machine information(e_machine) is given to compiler at lib/MC/ELFObjectWriter.cpp. I greped the whole llvm project and found that e_machine was assigned at only two files. One was lib/MC/ELFObjectWriter.cpp(there was an comment said “e_machine=target”) and the other was tools/obj2yaml/elf2yaml.cpp(GDB stopped only at the

From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> These patches basically remove unused linker scripts and port a change that was made to an unused script. Those are to be applied on top of the gcc 5 bug fixes as they would conflict otherwise. Sylvain Gault (4): diag/mbr: fix dependency to linker script Remove unused linker scripts core: Make symbols defined in linker script HIDDEN

Hi vedant, 1. First, I think your theory is right that llvm’s object file reading libraries do not “understand” the architecture I’m working on. Since I’m using binutils as assembler which means llvm can only provide asm and object file is provided by biutils. I think these ELF header information is provided by my binutils now, so maybe I have to modify binutils code to provide ELF header

...building the temporary build tree -------------------------------------------------------------- rm -rf /usr/obj/usr/src/i386 mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/bin mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/lib/compat/aout mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/games mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/libdata/ldscripts mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/libexec/elf mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/sbin [...] ===> usr.bin/su rm -f .depend mkdep -f .depend -a -DKERBEROS5 -DLOGIN_CAP -DSKEY /usr/src/usr.bin/su/su.c echo su: /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/lib/libc.a /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/lib/libutil.a /usr...

On Oct 9, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > We have a whole bunch of readers(we would have some more too), and was thinking if we should have a vector of Readers, and have a function isMyFormat in each of them. > > Any reader that knows to handle, goes ahead and parses the file. > > On a side note, we currently use .objtxt as an figure

...building the temporary build tree -------------------------------------------------------------- rm -rf /usr/obj/usr/src/i386 mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/bin mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/lib/compat/aout mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/games mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/libdata/ldscripts mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/libexec/elf mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/sbin mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/share/misc mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/share/dict mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/share/groff_font/devX100 mkdir -p /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/usr/share/groff_font/devX100-...

Hi, We have a whole bunch of readers(we would have some more too), and was thinking if we should have a vector of Readers, and have a function isMyFormat in each of them. Any reader that knows to handle, goes ahead and parses the file. On a side note, we currently use .objtxt as an figure out if the file is a YAML file or not. I have added FIXME's in the code, if we could some kind of

Hi, I am trying to compile R from source on Windows. I am following the instructions here 3.1 Building from source 3 Installing R under Windows file:///F:/ProgramFiles/R/R-2.15.3/doc/manual/R-admin.html It only says,? " The Tcl/Tk support files are contained in Rtools30.exe and? available as .zips from http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/Rtools.? Please make sure you install the right version:

From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> These few patches contain a few improvement about the Makefiles for EFI. Mainly, to rebuild the files when needed, and only when needed. The three shell scripts efi/{check,build,clean}-gnu-efi.sh disappeared and are now integrated as makefile recipes. You'll notice an argument ARFLAGS=rvU to the recursive make calls to gnu-efi. This is

The PNaCl project has implemented various IR simplification passes that simplify LLVM IR by lowering complex features to simpler features. We'd like to upstream some of these IR passes to LLVM. We'd like to explore if this acceptable, and if so, how we should go about doing this. The immediate reason is that Emscripten is reusing PNaCl's IR passes for its new "fastcomp"

Hello, The Xen community is working on a new virtualization mode (or maybe I should say an extension of HVM) to be able to run PV guests inside HVM containers without requiring a device-model (Qemu). One of the advantages of this new virtualization mode is that now it is much more easier to port guests to run under it (as compared to pure PV guests). Given that FreeBSD already supports