search for: odrtabs

...needing to support this extra info) > Linkers merge section contents by section name, so you wouldn't need anything other than for the object files to agree on a section name. The odrtab header in my prototype has a size field, so we could use that to split an .odrtab section into multiple odrtabs. Peter On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:41 PM Peter Collingbourne via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I'd like to propose an ODR checker feature for Clang and LLD. The feature >> would be similar to gold's --detect-odr-violatio...

...t;> >> Linkers merge section contents by section name, so you wouldn't need >> anything other than for the object files to agree on a section name. The >> odrtab header in my prototype has a size field, so we could use that to >> split an .odrtab section into multiple odrtabs. >> >> Peter >> >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:41 PM Peter Collingbourne via cfe-dev < >>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I'd like to propose an ODR checker feature for Clang and LLD....

Hi all, I'd like to propose an ODR checker feature for Clang and LLD. The feature would be similar to gold's --detect-odr-violations feature, but better: we can rely on integration with clang to avoid relying on debug info and to perform more precise matching. The basic idea is that we use clang's ability to create ODR hashes for declarations. ODR hashes are computed using all

...ther object file data? I assume that if these tables contain full mangled > symbol names, they could end up being very large and may want to share the > symbol name strings with the overall string table in the .o > Looking at Chromium's object files it looks like the total size of the odrtabs is about 50% of the total size of the object files, which isn't great. The current implementation only looks at records, so I imagine that it would be hard to share any of the strings that I'm currently creating. (I guess it's possible that some types will have a mangled vtable name in...

...es contain full mangled >>> symbol names, they could end up being very large and may want to share the >>> symbol name strings with the overall string table in the .o >>> >> >> Looking at Chromium's object files it looks like the total size of the >> odrtabs is about 50% of the total size of the object files, which isn't >> great. The current implementation only looks at records, so I imagine that >> it would be hard to share any of the strings that I'm currently creating. >> (I guess it's possible that some types will hav...

...bol names, they could end up being very large and may want to >>>>> share the symbol name strings with the overall string table in the .o >>>>> >>>> >>>> Looking at Chromium's object files it looks like the total size of the >>>> odrtabs is about 50% of the total size of the object files, which isn't >>>> great. The current implementation only looks at records, so I imagine that >>>> it would be hard to share any of the strings that I'm currently creating. >>>> (I guess it's possible...

...large and may want >>>>>>> to share the symbol name strings with the overall string table in the .o >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking at Chromium's object files it looks like the total size of >>>>>> the odrtabs is about 50% of the total size of the object files, which isn't >>>>>> great. The current implementation only looks at records, so I imagine that >>>>>> it would be hard to share any of the strings that I'm currently creating. >>>>>> (I...

...gt;>>> to share the symbol name strings with the overall string table in the .o >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looking at Chromium's object files it looks like the total size of >>>>>>>> the odrtabs is about 50% of the total size of the object files, which isn't >>>>>>>> great. The current implementation only looks at records, so I imagine that >>>>>>>> it would be hard to share any of the strings that I'm currently creating. >>>...

...bol name strings with the overall string table in the .o >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Looking at Chromium's object files it looks like the total size >>>>>>>>>> of the odrtabs is about 50% of the total size of the object files, which >>>>>>>>>> isn't great. The current implementation only looks at records, so I imagine >>>>>>>>>> that it would be hard to share any of the strings that I'm currently >&g...

...l string table in the .o >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at Chromium's object files it looks like the total size >>>>>>>>>>>> of the odrtabs is about 50% of the total size of the object files, which >>>>>>>>>>>> isn't great. The current implementation only looks at records, so I imagine >>>>>>>>>>>> that it would be hard to share any of the strings that I'm...

...l string table in the .o >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at Chromium's object files it looks like the total size >>>>>>>>>>>> of the odrtabs is about 50% of the total size of the object files, which >>>>>>>>>>>> isn't great. The current implementation only looks at records, so I imagine >>>>>>>>>>>> that it would be hard to share any of the strings that I'm...

...;>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at Chromium's object files it looks like the total >>>>>>>>>>>>>> size of the odrtabs is about 50% of the total size of the object files, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which isn't great. The current implementation only looks at records, so I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine that it would be hard to share any of the strin...

...;>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at Chromium's object files it looks like the total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> size of the odrtabs is about 50% of the total size of the object files, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which isn't great. The current implementation only looks at records, so I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine that it would be hard to share...