similar to: [lld] State of lld-ld64

I believe it doesn't work. It might work at simple cases. 2018-02-07 10:16 GMT-02:00 Carlo Kok via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Hi, > > Is there any up to date info on the state of lld in darwin mode? I realize > it's not being updated much, but does it work for all darwin targets? Are > there things that don't work? >

Thanks for your reply. Two questions: 1). Will ld64.lld be fixed in LLVM v11.0 and when is this likely to be? 2). You mention Apple’s linker, by which I assume you mean GNU’s ld. Is it possible to get a binary version of ld (preferably that does not use other things from /usr/bin)? Thanks > On 7 May 2020, at 12:26, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > > The MachO

James, many thanks. Is there any linker available for Macs that has a freely available binary version? I thought maybe that GNU’s linker might fit the bill? I cannot use Apple’s linker from /usr/bin/ as it is not allowed to make external calls from a sandboxed app. Hence my interest in the LLVM lld. > On 7 May 2020, at 19:21, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > > On

<div class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr" style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt" ><div dir="ltr" >Hi all,</div> <div dir="ltr" >I'm very excited to be able to share this with everyone. </div> <div dir="ltr" > </div> <div dir="ltr" >IBM announced this

Dear LLVM community I need some help please. I want to use LLVM's clang and lld within a MacOSX sandboxed app. This is because sandboxing does not allow calls to /usr/bin/clang. The clang binary works fine to compile a file, but ld64.lld comes up with the error "cannot find framework". However similar arguments using /usr/bin/ld instead of ld64.lld works fine. Here are the

Hi Rui, The motivation would be primarily that LLVM/Clang/LLD are community projects such that if I or someone in the community added support for e.g. symbol aliases, then it could be reviewed and potentially merged. ld64 on the other hand does not have a community process for patch submission and code review that I am aware of so its unlikely that if someone from the community came up with a

Hi Folks, I have a question regarding LLD support for ld64 mach-o linker synthesised symbols. I did a quick search of the LLD source and I can not find support for them so before I start trying to use lld I thought I would ask. I have found a couple of cases where they are essential. i.e. where there is no other way to get the required information, such as getting the address of the mach-o

When linking a project with lld, the android libc links to __executable_start which isn't defined when linking with lld (tried on x86), but is when linking with gnu ld it seems. I tried: .globl __executable_start __executable_start = __ehdr_start as a workaround but seems to be ignored. Anyone know a better workaround? Thanks, -- Carlo Kok RemObjects Software

It's a wasm testcase that ends up with a 1 mb executable; after 15 minutes I killed it, it doesn't do anything (note that it's waiting on a conditional variable in ALL threads) On Wed, May 8, 2019, at 14:32, Brian Cain wrote: > Are you sure it's not just taking "a long time"? If that build machine doesn't have enormous amounts of memory you could end up with a

The problem is a bitcode implementation that has a stdcall function that's used from native code. 1 side has _elements_exception_handler, compiled that would be __elements_exception_handler at 20 due to stdcall. The native bit has the mangled name and the linker can't find it as the bitcode indexes have it without mangling. I'll try to prepare a testcase when I get back in the office.

On a 12" MacBook (2017) with 2 cores I get lld/wasm to be stuck in: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/carlokok/1a14e7ed3dbbd54511e1f0b3a7d684ff/raw/19267560b584ca42cc66f44f508df5b34102d803/thread%2520for%2520waiting It seems the outer for loop exhausts the thread pool, and the inner ones trigger a new parallel for which never finishes because the pool is full. Is this a bug or am I

Android libc casts its address to the elf header type. So I think start of text? Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> schreef op 30 mei 2017 20:51:19 CEST: >It is missing from lld. > >Do you know what it should point to? The first executable PT_LOAD? > >Thanks, >Rafael > >Carlo Kok via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: >

Mixing native and bitcode files should just work, and that happens all the time, as most programs need at least crt.o (which is a precompiled native object file containing startup code). Could you elaborate the issue a bit? It might be a bug in lld. On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 3:11 AM Carlo Kok via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2018, at 11:23, Carlo Kok

Sorry, I was thinking to review the test but didn't. Is this test complete? It does invoke lld, but it didn't verify its output. On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:03 PM Andrew Kelley <superjoe30 at gmail.com> wrote: > Ping Rui. Is there anything else that needs to be done on this patch? > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:58 AM, Carlo Kok via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at

Got it. Attached are both the testcase & the fix. On Tue, Jul 17, 2018, at 12:06, Carlo Kok via llvm-dev wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, at 16:45, Davide Italiano wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:12 PM Carlo Kok via llvm-dev > > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > > That sounds quite reasaonable; how does one usually go about doing that?

I'm having a curious issue with LLD/x86_64 linux/elf (Ubuntu 14.04); Where the l_addr of the link_map is invalid when linked with lld, but is fine with gnu ld. I'm using the libgc (boehm) code which when initializing reads the DYNAMIC/DEBUG link_map data, and crashes because the l_addr field has value out of readable memory. The strange this is that it happens only on some linux

Clang may be avoiding this problem because it will always emit "\01__elements_exception_handler at 20" as the function name. It probably does that for precisely this reason. On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 11:55 AM Carlo Kok via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The problem is a bitcode implementation that has a stdcall function that's > used from native code. 1

Hmmm.... it's a shame.... what are the minimum requirements for Fixed Point Speex? John Villar Gerente de Proyectos Computadores Flor Hard Soft 2058 C.A. www.florhard.com Alain wrote: > Hi, no chance to run it on anything from Microchip, theyr best > processor is 16 Mips 8 bits only. For what I have been readind on this > list for more than a year you need a lot more than

On 2017-02-21 20:33, Rafael Avila de Espindola wrote: >> Input files: >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/8yn3dggx05atn47/binLinux.zip?dl=0 > > If you pass --reproduce foo.tar to lld it will create a foo.tar file > with all that is needed to reproduce the link. > > Can you also share how you created the various .o files? If so I might > be able to try reducing the issue.

When having a project that's partially bitcode and partially native code, should lld allow linking a native .o to a bitcode .o? specifically in my case, I've got an stdcall function in bitcode, called by native code, but it can't find the symbol (bitcode has it unmangled, native code with _ and @20)