search for: nuta

...able? The rest of the behavior, especially around “__TEXT.__text is bad but __TEXT.__unwind_info is good”, is pretty confusing. Can we define our own “canonical names” for canonical sections such as __unwind_info? > > Thanks, > > James > > On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 05:43, Seiya Nuta <nuta at seiya.me <mailto:nuta at seiya.me>> wrote: > 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 s...

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 all, My name is Seiya Nuta. I'm studying for my master's degree in University of Tsukuba and interested in the project named "Improve LLVM binary utilities". I've skimmed through llvm-objcopy/llvm-objdump, commit logs, and Bugzilla to figure out what should I do. I have some questions about the project...

...way > that makes them easy to jump between. > > Many bugs (though not enough) are tagged with the "beginner" keyword: https://bugs.llvm.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=keyword%3Abeginner&list_id=157827. That's usually a good start. > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:34 AM Seiya Nuta via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> My name is Seiya Nuta. I'm studying for my master's degree in University >> of Tsukuba and interested in the project named "Improve LLVM binary >> utilities". I've...

Every case is different, but yes, as I said - I would like to take a closer look at the problem again, it might be the case that we don't need this complexity in this particular case, but want to double check. But yeah, in general I agree with you! On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 6:09 PM Jake Ehrlich <jakehehrlich at google.com> wrote: > I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head.