similar to: Should we switch to --hash-style=both by default in LLD ?

> Le 2 oct. 2017 à 14:23, George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> a écrit : > > I think we can switch LLD either to "both" or probably to "gnu" by default as well. > Initial version of patch that changes default to "both" is here: D38407 > > Any thoughts ? > > Best regards, > George | Developer | Access Softek, Inc Hi, I

+1 for both table formats. Then we're compatible by default no matter what. If somebody cares about .o file size, they can explicitly specify their --hash-style. On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:35 AM, George Rimar via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Le 2 oct. 2017 à 14:23, George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> a écrit > : > >> > >> I

?But could not we for example do split dwarf, but for example do dedup of types ? I do not mean right now, but in a theory ? Best regards, George | Developer | Access Softek, Inc ________________________________ От: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> Отправлено: 16 декабря 2017 г. 22:25 Кому: George Rimar Копия: Sean Silva; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Rui Ueyama; Rafael Espindola Тема:

>I think we should wait until there is someone wanting to use these features with lld. > >Cheers, >Rafael Ok. Should we give an error when .note.gnu.property section is in the object?? ?Best regards, George | Developer | Access Softek, Inc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 1:48 AM George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > Thanks, David! > > > Few minor additions to the topic: > > > > I'm not sure which MSVC version on godbolt would be "MSVC 2017" that > the LLVM docs refer to > > > I've found that the minimal available version of MSVC on > godbolt is "WINE MSVC 2015:

Yeah, not sure either. The discussion about minimum compatibility usually comes down to what version is available on long-term OS releases. On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 12:38 PM George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > > Is the code currently broken? > > > I don't know. Perhaps the code is fine, I did not try to compile LLVM > with all that compilers > >

>Wasn't our (lld/ELF's) position on debug info size that we should focus on providing a great split-dwarf workflow and not try go too far out of our way to deduplicate >or otherwise reduce debug info size inside LLD? I recall there being some patches that made linking of large debug binaries like 1.5GB+ clang faster, but we decided to >reject those changes because split-dwarf was

I'd think we shouldn't do anything even for printing out a warning unless doing it is proved to be useful. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:04 AM George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > >I think we should wait until there is someone wanting to use these > features with lld. > > > >Cheers, > >Rafael > > Ok. Should we give an error when

I expect r324738 will break on windows, as I mentioned I had to change CHECK: ./test.cpp:2:51 to CHECK: {\\|/}}test.cpp:2:51 ? Best regards, George | Developer | Access Softek, Inc ________________________________ От: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> Отправлено: 9 февраля 2018 г. 18:35 Кому: George Rimar Копия: Robinson, Paul; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Rafael Avila de Espindola

>Totally fair call, sorry it took me a while to come back around to this - added in r324702 Thanks ! Have a question: does it need "requres shell" ? I tried without and it worked for me under windows (had to change check to CHECK: .{{\\|/}}test.cpp:2:51 though). And I see nothing special probably that might require shell I think. We use cd/rm/cp in LLD testcases without requiring

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:08 AM George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > FWIW, I've performed an experiment with the code below at godbolt. > (used -O2, https://godbolt.org/z/nY95nh) > > ``` > #include <vector> > #include "llvm/Support/Error.h" > > llvm::Expected<std::vector<int>> foo() { > std::vector<int> V; >

?The idea itself is indeed good. Regarding to escaping: I think we should have it. Imagine the following example (I've took it from D73828). --- !ELF FileHeader: Class: ELFCLASS[[BITS]] Data: ELFDATA2LSB Type: ET_EXEC Machine: EM_386 # RUN: yaml2obj %s --docnum=4 -D BITS=32 -o %t-32bit.o # RUN: yaml2obj %s --docnum=4 -D BITS=64 -o %t-64bit.o Without escaping it would

Nah, doesn't look like it. Removed it (& the place I copied it from) in: r324738 Thanks! On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:28 AM George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > >Totally fair call, sorry it took me a while to come back around to this - > added in r324702 > > Thanks ! Have a question: does it need "requres shell" ? > I tried without and it

Hello guys, Today I tried to find the amount of LLD(elf) code covered by our test cases. So my aim was to run the LLD tests we have (run check-lld task) and find out which code was executed/covered and which was not. I used the approach from the next article to do that: http://logan.tw/posts/2015/04/28/check-code-coverage-with-clang-and-lcov/#create-a-wrapper-script-for-lcov In short, it is

Thanks for the suggestions. I think the naming the whole line idea is okay, but it feels a bit clunky. Either we'd have to have a syntax that FileCheck would recognise without caring about the prefix (which seems to be against the ethos of FileCheck, and also makes it less flexible), or in the case I'm referring to, we'd have to have an extra line that does nothing other than define

​Hi all, > I feel it might be confusing to have a CHECK becomes effectively a CHECK-NOT, > especially if the RUN line is far from the CHECK line (which is often the case when > a single RUN line drives several groups of CHECK directives (e.g. code generation > tested for several functions for a specific feature, like PIC). You also loose control > on where the NOT should be:

Thanks a lot for doing this. Having it automated an in a bot would be really nice. Cheers, Rafael George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> writes: > Hello guys, > > Today I tried to find the amount of LLD(elf) code covered by our test cases. So my aim was to run the LLD tests we have (run check-lld task) and find out which code was executed/covered and which was not. > >

?Hi, I found a new issue in lld (https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26222), but after review of outputs internals still have no idea why that can happen. Do you have any thoughts about possible reasons of that ? I am going to continue investigating that tomorrow. Best regards, George. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, Rafael took some measurements to try to investigate the effect of the local symbols changes. I've been taking a look at the measurements he got and there were some interesting things we noticed. For starters, in the range of revisions tested (r263214 through r263471), we found that the commit for --build-id was the most noticeable, with slowdowns from 7% to 23% (note: these were

Many thanks for the reply, right, this is what the discussion is about. On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:57 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > To clarify, this is a discussion around whether given some move-only type > X, implicitly convertible to Y and the code "Y func() { X x; return x; }" > is that valid in LLVM? (and, as a corollary, if the type isn't