search for: linker_scripts

Hi, webmasters of llvm.org, In March, lld/docs/ELF/linker_script.rst was created to document the linker script support as implemented in lld. I just checked the website http://lld.llvm.org/ . At the bottom there is a link "Linker Script implementation notes and policy" but the target page shows as 403 Forbidden. Relatedly, http://lld.llvm.org/_sources/ does not include the

On 2020-06-02, Moshtaghi, Alireza wrote: >Sorry for the cryptic code but I had to modify stuff from original >In the following example see the difference when you comment or uncomment the line in the linker script: >============ test.c ============= : >struct orphan_dummy_anno_s { > void (*func)(void); >}; > >static void dummy_export_dbg_log_init_f (void) __attribute__

You are right it creates them but sets the protected flag (STV_PROTECTED) which seems to be the cause of my problem. How can I tell it to set the flag as STV_DEFAULT? Thanks A On 5/28/20, 11:30 PM, "Fangrui Song" <maskray at google.com> wrote: NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know

For example something like STARTUP ( http://wiki.osdev.org/Linker_Scripts#STARTUP) is not accepted by the LLVM LLD. :-/ On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Sky Flyer <skylake007 at gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah I found it, that's nice. Thanks a milion. > Could you please tell me how can I specify my bootstrap (startup code) in > the linking process? > &gt...

search for VAStart. Cheers, Rafael On 20 April 2016 at 14:18, Sky Flyer <skylake007 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > Thanks a lot. > For example the start entry for me is 0x11000 by default which I don't know > where it come from! I thought there should be a default thing that sets this > entry address. > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Rafael Espíndola

Hi people, this is an attempt to see whether gcc's inline asm heuristic when estimating inline asm statements' cost for better inlining can be improved. AFAIU, the problematic arises when one ends up using a lot of inline asm statements in the kernel but due to the inline asm cost estimation heuristic which counts lines, I think, for example like in this here macro:

Revert the following 9 commits: [1] 5bdcd510c2ac ("x86/jump-labels: Macrofy inline assembly code to work around GCC inlining bugs") This was partially reverted because it made good cleanups irrespective of the inlining issue; the error message is still unneeded, and the conversion to STATIC_BRANCH_{NOP,JUMP} should be kept. [2] d5a581d84ae6 ("x86/cpufeature:

Revert the following commits: - 5bdcd510c2ac9efaf55c4cbd8d46421d8e2320cd ("x86/jump-labels: Macrofy inline assembly code to work around GCC inlining bugs") - d5a581d84ae6b8a4a740464b80d8d9cf1e7947b2 ("x86/cpufeature: Macrofy inline assembly code to work around GCC inlining bugs") - 0474d5d9d2f7f3b11262f7bf87d0e7314ead9200. ("x86/extable: Macrofy inline assembly

Revert the following commits: - 5bdcd510c2ac9efaf55c4cbd8d46421d8e2320cd ("x86/jump-labels: Macrofy inline assembly code to work around GCC inlining bugs") - d5a581d84ae6b8a4a740464b80d8d9cf1e7947b2 ("x86/cpufeature: Macrofy inline assembly code to work around GCC inlining bugs") - 0474d5d9d2f7f3b11262f7bf87d0e7314ead9200. ("x86/extable: Macrofy inline assembly