similar to: llvm-rc option parsing

I've come across a curious and pernicious problem in llvm-rc. absolute.test checks that llvm-rc can accept a filename that is an absolute path. And it works just fine. Until you run it with a file that starts with "/c." These will fail: llvm-rc /crawl/through/some/path/to/my.rc llvm-rc /c/some/path/to/my.rc The option parser ends up interpreting "/" as an option prefix

Adding Juergen to the thread. On Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 12:20 PM Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Ping. > > > > Would anyone be opposed to me trying to revive the in-tree Mach-O TAPI > code? > > > > Thanks, > > Shoaib > > > > *From: *Shoaib Meenai <smeenai at fb.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at

Hi all, It looks like Juergen landed the TextAPI libraries for Mach-O in https://reviews.llvm.org/D53945, and also had several follow-ups, but then it was deleted entirely by r347874. I'm not sure if the entire deletion was intentional, since the commit message only mentions reverting a certain series of patches; CC Hans. In any case, I'm wondering if there are plans to revive it, since

https://reviews.llvm.org/rL353906 introduced (presumably accidentally) the "b" top-level directory to the monorepo. The files should be moved to their proper location, but I'm also wondering if there's any way to prevent accidental top-level additions like this. Thanks, Shoaib -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Actually, sorry, my fix was for the case where you had other arguments beginning with @ that weren't response files, whereas yours has actual response files, so my patch won't help there. CCing Reid and Hans, who did a bunch of the implementation in this area. From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

I still need answer to my question about how to make sure that libcxx and libcxxabi are also built after enabling them, but I have another problem right now. I want to know how to link third-party libraries into my code using the lld linker. I have this code: https://github.com/DragonOsman/currency_converter

Hi all, We’re planning to contribute a new implementation of LLD for Mach-O, using the same design as the COFF and ELF ports. This design has proven to work very well for those ports, and we’re keen to explore it for Mach-O as well. Our work is based on an initial prototype created by Peter Collingbourne and Rui Ueyama. Our initial commit is up for review at https://reviews.llvm.org/D75382.

[You can find an easier to read and more complete version of this RFC here <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QidaJMJUyQdRrFKD66vE1_N55whe0coQ3h1GpFzz27M/edit?ts=5aaa84ee#> .] Knowing instruction scheduling properties (latency, uops) is the basis for all scheduling work done by LLVM. Unfortunately, vendors usually release only partial (and sometimes incorrect) information. Updating the

I'm an idiot and sent to llvm-commits instead of llvm-dev. Fixing. On 10/17/17, 5:09 PM, "llvm-commits on behalf of Shoaib Meenai via llvm-commits" <llvm-commits-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote: Hi all (CC beanz for cmake advice), I'm running into a cmake problem when I try to cross-compile a

I discovered that I can hack around my particular problem by placing set_property(TARGET clang PROPERTY INTERFACE_LINK_LIBRARIES) at the end of tools/driver/CMakeLists.txt. I'd prefer to fix this properly though, of course. On 12/1/17, 4:18 PM, "llvm-dev on behalf of Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

I’m happy to run them, although I’d appreciate a pointer to the appropriate documentation. From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Tobias Hieta via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Reply-To: Tobias Hieta <tobias at plexapp.com> Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 11:15 AM To: Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

Hi all, I want to use the LLVM_DISTRIBUTION_COMPONENTS support to create an installed toolchain image (via the install-distribution target). I'd also like the installed binaries to be stripped. If you're invoking a cmake install script directly, you can pass -DCMAKE_INSTALL_DO_STRIP=1 to cmake to request stripping. The install-* targets set up by LLVM's build system don't seem to

Hi, I recently hit this on a project using a build system that relies heavily on nested response files. We found we could only have 21 response files total before getting errors related to the unexpanded response files. I tracked it down to this code in llvm/lib/Support/CommandLine.cpp // If we have too many response files, leave some unexpanded. This avoids // crashing on

I have made some further investigation. My conclusion is that GNU ld does not do better than lld. Making the --defsym behavior ideal is difficult in the current framework. GNU ld has some unintended behaviors. ld.bfd a.o --defsym 'd=foo' --gc-sections -o a => GNU ld retains .text_foo ld.bfd a.o --defsym 'd=foo+3' --gc-sections -o a => GNU ld drops .text_foo ld.bfd a.o

I looked into this further. ld64 has a macho_nlist abstraction over the various underlying nlist structures [1]. On x86-64, the P::getP referenced in n_value will resolve to [2], which in turn goes to [3], which calls OSReadLittleInt64. On a little endian machine, OSReadLittleEndian just calls _OSReadInt64 [4], which in turn does a pointer arithmetic and cast and then dereferences the pointer [5].

Judging by this path: needed by 'tools/lld/Common/VCSVersion.inc' It looks to me like this is **not** a monorepo layout (if it were, lld would not appear in the tools directory). Therefore the LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS=lld is not even doing anything. I don't know how to build without a monorepo these days, and I also don't know what the most recent guidance setting up a monorepo is,

Hi Sjoerd, On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:19 AM Sjoerd Meijer via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I read that out-of-order cores are supported. How about in-order cores? > Would it be easy/difficult to add support for that? > > Cheers, > Sjoerd. > > I don't think that it would be difficult to support in-order superscalar cores. However, it would

On 2020-02-28, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: >Nice! > >Your plan sounds great, and it'll be awesome to finally have a good MachO >LLD available. > >On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:32 PM Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev < >llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> We’re planning to contribute a new implementation of LLD for Mach-O, using

I was looking at the SymbolTable code in LLD COFF and ELF recently, and I’m confused by the use of CachedHashStringRef. From what I understand, a CachedHashStringRef combines a StringRef with a computed hash. There’s no caching going on in the CachedHashStringRef itself; that is, if you construct CachedHashStringRef("foo"), and then construct a second

LLVM developers: Does anyone have time and interest to review a libc++ change? https://reviews.llvm.org/D26920 Eric