Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "linkaslibrary".
2005 Aug 01
2
[LLVMdev] [patch] gccld not passing -export-dynamic to gcc for link
...+++ tools/gccld/gccld.cpp 1 Aug 2005 22:06:26 -0000
@@ -308,8 +308,8 @@
Verbose);
if (Verbose) std::cout << "Generating Native Code\n";
GenerateNative(OutputFilename, AssemblyFile.toString(),
- LibPaths, Libraries, gcc, envp, LinkAsLibrary, RPath,
- SOName, Verbose);
+ LibPaths, Libraries, gcc, envp, LinkAsLibrary,
+ NoInternalize, RPath, SOName, Verbose);
if (!SaveTemps) {
// Remove the assembly language file.
@@ -340,8 +340,8 @@
GenerateCFile(CFile.toString(), R...
2005 Aug 02
0
[LLVMdev] [patch] gccld not passing -export-dynamic to gcc for link
...+++ tools/gccld/gccld.cpp 2 Aug 2005 04:11:11 -0000
@@ -308,8 +308,8 @@
Verbose);
if (Verbose) std::cout << "Generating Native Code\n";
GenerateNative(OutputFilename, AssemblyFile.toString(),
- LibPaths, Libraries, gcc, envp, LinkAsLibrary, RPath,
- SOName, Verbose);
+ LibPaths, Libraries, gcc, envp, LinkAsLibrary,
+ NoInternalize, RPath, SOName, Verbose);
if (!SaveTemps) {
// Remove the assembly language file.
@@ -340,8 +340,8 @@
GenerateCFile(CFile...
2009 Sep 23
0
[LLVMdev] ld with gold-plugin can do this?
Sanjiv Gupta wrote:
> Nick Lewycky wrote:
>> Sanjiv.Gupta at microchip.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> A common followup question is "but how do I link native libraries into
>>> my .bc file". You don't. A .bc file is llvm ir, you can't put a native
>>> binary library into a .bc (barring sticking it in as a string, etc).
>>>
2009 Sep 22
2
[LLVMdev] ld with gold-plugin can do this?
Nick Lewycky wrote:
> Sanjiv.Gupta at microchip.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> A common followup question is "but how do I link native libraries into
>> my .bc file". You don't. A .bc file is llvm ir, you can't put a native
>> binary library into a .bc (barring sticking it in as a string, etc).
>>
>> The build then looks like:
>>
>>
2007 Jul 05
2
[LLVMdev] PATCH (rest of code changes) "bytecode" --> "bitcode"
Here is the bulk of the sanitizing.
My residual doubts center around the question
whether we still do/want to support (un)compressed *byte*code
in 2.0/2.1.
I need a definitive word on this to proceed.
My understanding is that bytecode is already gone, but there are
still some functions/enums that really deal with *byte*code
(instead of *bit*code).
I did not touch those areas, so the attached