search for: sectionizing

Hi -- I''m getting started with Rails by rewriting a little web-app I wrote last year in PHP. (I have a bit of prior Ruby experience, and have been working with SQLite for about a year.) My app is up and running, but on looking through the development.log I noticed that Rails is making a lot of identical SELECT queries while handling a single request. These are just the simple

This idea popped up in the review thread for https://reviews.llvm.org/D25627 . Problem: Currently, LLD creates special sections that are not just concatenations of input sections but need link-time data generation, such as .got, .plt, interp, .mips.options, etc., as output sections. We have OutputSectionBase subclasses (e.g. GotSection, PltSection, etc.) to create data. Even though this scheme

On 7/25/2013 3:56 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: > I think I share the goal with you to make the foundation for better > dead-strip, so thank you for suggesting. I'm not sure if marking a section > as a whole as "safe" or "unsafe" is the best approach, though. Some > comments. > > - If the compiler generated code is always "safe", and if we can >

I would suggest converting only part of linker generated sections to input sections to reduce amount of code changes. For example it's unlikely that SymbolTableSection or StringTableSection would ever require such treatment, so why converting them to input sections? 2016-10-19 11:03 GMT+03:00 George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com>: >>This idea popped up in the review thread

Is there any reason -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections wouldn't work? If it'll work, it may be be better to say "if you want to get a better linker output use these options", rather than defining new ELF section. On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote: > On 7/25/2013 3:56 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: > >> I think I

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Peter Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Thanks for the RFC. > > I'm in favour of the option of creating InputSections for some linker > generated content. I think it would add extra flexibility to the > linker. ARM's proprietary linker uses the equivalent of InputSections > with a pseudo linker defined

Hi, We’d like to propose an extension to both the map file and the print-gc/icf-sections output. This extension would be to report the pieces of .eh_frame and SHF_MERGE sections in these files somehow. Since all (or at least the majority) of the contents of these sections in the output come from inputs, it would be beneficial in trying to associate the output contents with where they came from,

I am a little stuck with getting an sql result into my page. I want to run a select distinct that returns all of the different sections available and displays this as a form select. In my controller I have: def edit @resource = Resource.find(params[:id]) @sections = Resource.find_by_sql "SELECT DISTINCT resources.section FROM resources" end And then in my view I have: <%

Not all users compile their code with -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections. This is to handle usecases when libraries use a mix of object files too. On 7/25/2013 4:10 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: > Is there any reason -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections wouldn't work? > If it'll work, it may be be better to say "if you want to get a better > linker output use these

Hi, Currently lld ties up all atoms in a section for ELF together. This proposal just breaks it by handling it differently. *This requires **NO ELF ABI changes. *_*Definitions :-*_ A section is not considered safe if there is some code that appears to be present between function boundaries (or) optimizes sections to place data at the end or beginning of a section (that contains no symbol).

Hi all, I'd like to propose that LLVM IR have a mechanism to describe sections in a more explicit way than we can today. Currently, we provide an attribute called "section" on GlobalVariables and Functions. This attribute will choose which section the Value will end up in. However, it does not describe the attributes of the section. Without a way of describing the section, we try

I think I share the goal with you to make the foundation for better dead-strip, so thank you for suggesting. I'm not sure if marking a section as a whole as "safe" or "unsafe" is the best approach, though. Some comments. - If the compiler generated code is always "safe", and if we can distinguish it from hand-written assembly code by checking if there's a

I've started investigating -O0 -g compile times with llvm-gcc, which are pretty important for people in development mode (e.g. all debug builds of llvm itself!). I've found some interesting things. I'm testing with mainline as of r52596 in a Release build and with checking disabled in the front- end. My testcase is a large C++ source file: my friend

Hi llvm-dev, I'm currently looking for alternatives to the synthetic references that XRay uses to keep some side-tables live, to avoid linker garbage collection from deleting those sections. Before going any further, let me give a backgrounder on what XRay does today. Background ========== XRay has two side tables we use at runtime to identify the location of the sleds for the functions

On Jul 29, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > On 7/29/2013 11:24 AM, Nick Kledzik wrote: >> On Jul 25, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: >>> Is there any reason -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections wouldn't work? If it'll work, it may be be better to say "if you want to get a better linker output use these options", rather than defining new ELF

Hi, I'm trying to R CMD check a package, however I have hit a snag. There seems to be a problem with the creation of the /html files (the only file that's constructed here is the 00Index.html). I've tested each of the .Rd files independently with R CMD Rdconv, they all happily create html files without complaint. R CMD check <package> gives the no warnings. I'm therefore

On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 08:37 +1100, Tom Robinson via samba wrote: > Full back trace provided in previous message. Still don't know why > samba-tool is crashing. Any help > is appreciated. Can you run testparm over the smb.conf file? I think it may be refusing to load it. Andrew Bartlett

I use eMule 0.50a with wine 1.1.43, and crashes every day. I am attaching the log. Code: Xlib: extension "Generic Event Extension" missing on display ":1.0". Xlib: extension "Generic Event Extension" missing on display ":1.0". fixme:actctx:parse_depend_manifests Could not find dependent assembly L"Microsoft.VC90.CRT" (9.0.21022.8) Xlib:

Hi, Many linkers including lld have a feature to eliminate unused sections from output to make output smaller (which is essentially a mark-sweep gc where sections are vertices and relocations are edges). lld and GNU gold have yet another feature, ICF, to merge functions by contents to save more space. When we remove or merge a function, we want to eliminate its exception handling information as

No I haven't. Thank you for the pointer. Looks like the problem of the inverted edges was discussed there. But I guess my bigger question is this: why do we still create one big .eh_frame even if -ffunction-sections is given? When the option is given, Clang creates .text, .rela.text and .gcc_exception_table sections for each function, but it still creates a monolithic .eh_frame that covers