search for: machos

I'm trying to build llvm and clang release_34 git branch on ubuntu 13.04, using cmake, and i'm getting numerous errors from lldb: [ 83%] Building CXX object tools/lldb/source/Core/CMakeFiles/lldbCore.dir/Address.cpp.o /home/sam/src/llvm/tools/lldb/source/Expression/ClangExpressionParser.cpp: In function ‘clang::FrontendAction* CreateFrontendBaseAction(clang::CompilerInstance&)’:

Hi! I think llvm-mc did amazing work and I'm stunned ;). - So I start reading source-code and making notes. To my question: At which state is the disassembly for PEcoff or ELF? I read the blog (http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/intro-to-llvm-mc-project.html): """ The MC components have been designed to be object file independent (e.g. work for MachO, ELF, PE-COFF etc) but only have

With the correct list this time. On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > Hi, > in the last month I spent some time implementing the missing MachO > specific features in llvm-readobj, and converting all the remaining > tests that used macho-dump to the new format. > llvm-readobj should have all the functionality that macho-dump had. If

> On May 23, 2019, at 2:05 AM, James Henderson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I discussed this with Seiya off the mailing list yesterday, and this was the suggestion we came up with, on the basis that GNU objcopy has support for the renaming for GDB support, but it might be confusing to people who are new to the system, so we provide a more expected output

Some doxygen annotations are attached to the wrong entry, which can be misleading. This patch fixes the mistake everywhere I could find it. --- include/llvm/InstrTypes.h | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- include/llvm/MC/MCDirectives.h | 42 +++++++++++++++--------------- include/llvm/Pass.h | 10 +++--- 3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-) diff

Nate, Right, okay. I was also planning on looking at what the assembly output generates and "emulating" its output. So I should be able to use the 'test/CodeGen/PowerPC' tests once I have augmented the MachO Writer PowerPC output. Does this seem like the right and sensible approach ? Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: Nate Begeman To: LLVM Developers Mailing

This is a silly question, but I am in a situation where I need to build x86 and arm assembly sources for some sources while the rest will be built with C. I do know that just adding `-fembed-bitcode` to a C sources would embed bitcode, but doing the same for the assembly files will not do that (at least, it will add the 1-byte `_LLVM,__asm` section, but not the `__LLVM,__bitcode` section).

Currently, the MachO and ELF Writers and MachineCodeEmitters are hard-coded into LLVMTargetMachine and llc. In other words, the 'object file generation' capabilities of the Common Code Generator are not generic. LLVMTargetMachine::addPassesToEmitFile explicitly checks whether the derived backend TargetMachine implements one of getMachOWriterInfo or getELFWriterInfo, and returns a

Is anyone using the MachO Writer ? If so do you have any test cases as I am moving it over to use the prototype direct object emission code and I need test cases to verify it working correctly. Many thanks in advance, Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I'm going to implement Mach-O support in llvm-objcopy. Before working on this, I'd like to hear your thoughts how llvm-objcopy should handle Mach-O section names. By convention, Mach-O section names are denoted by "<segment name>,<section name>". However, GNU objcopy renames them in the following rule [1]: - If the section name is well-known, rename it to an

Hi, A few tests seem broken for a long time, some for more than a month. Would it possible for respective owners to take a look please? I'm at checkout 133a7e631cee97965e310f0d110739217427fd3d, compiling on Windows 10. These tests fail with Visual Studio 2019: Failing Tests (7): Clang Tools :: clang-tidy/checkers/cert-mem57-cpp-cpp17.cpp Clang Tools ::

Hi, I am working on the direct object module emission, and am wondering if anyone is successfully using the MachO backend. Thanks, Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090515/b8b96813/attachment.html>

I doubt anyone is using it, as it is not complete. On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Aaron Gray wrote: > Is anyone using the MachO Writer ? > > If so do you have any test cases as I am moving it over to use the > prototype direct object emission code and I need test cases to > verify it working correctly. > > Many thanks in advance, > > Aaron > >

Hey everyone! Recently there has been some progress on LLVM-based tools for manipulating MachO binaries: llvm-objcopy has been gaining a lot of important bits to support MachO (it's relatively close to the point where one can implement the strip-like functionality), llvm-lipo is functional and supports most of cctools' lipo options (https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/llvm-lipo.html). There

> Aaron, I mailed in the same mail twice (by mistake), you answered both > copies. Differently! > > In any case, I've re-read what exists. I'm dumping what I understand > here, so that we can discuss in detail. I'm using MachO as the example > object format, as the ELF code is totally broken and outdated. Lets > use the following as the basis for our discussion?

> Currently, the MachO and ELF Writers and MachineCodeEmitters are > hard-coded into LLVMTargetMachine and llc. I am also interested in working on this area and interested in writting a COFF file backend. > In other words, the 'object file generation' capabilities of the > Common Code Generator are not generic. I was looking at making a parallel class to MachineCodeEmitter,

Dear ladies and gentlemen, I have recently installed the latest version of R (4.3.3) for windows. Now I have the following problems with mutated vowels like ?, ?, etc. Here is an example: If I type the command: Dir <- "C/Users/macho/Documents/_LVn/Experimentelle ?bungen" in the R console there is no problem. However, if I put the same command into a source file (e.g. Test.r) and call

On 6/23/14, 8:31 AM, David Chisnall wrote: > On 23 Jun 2014, at 15:13, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > >> The main issue with your patch is that it can change user expected >> behaviour, and I can't tell you what is the expected behaviour in >> Darwin or BSD. If people usually use "unknown" in triples, this will >> break their

> I've never looked at the MachO code as I do not have such a platform nor do > I know the file format. > > Could we concentrate on the ELF backend, please. I don't mind using the ELF backend as our test case, it just seems that the ELFWriter/ELFCodeEmitter don't even use the BufferBegin/BufferEnd/CurBufferPtr system exposed by the base MachineCodeEmitter. There is a big

CCing Nick Kledzik as I posed this question on IRC and Tim Northover suggested you as a good resource for this. I came across an error due to a scattered relocation offset being larger than 2**24 and I was hoping to find more information on scattered relocations. These are MachO specific, and Ive not been able to find any documentation on them outside of source code. I have a couple of immediate