similar to: [LLVMdev] ELF / COFF Summary

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Reid Spencer wrote: > So, here's the plan: > > 1. No reading interface. To have a system agnostic interface for reading > a dynamic library, use System/DynamicLibrary. No plans for reading a > native object file for any kind of examination purpose (at least, not > for a long while). Sounds good. > 2. We will support .so/.dll and .o/.obj file output.

> In the case of the ELF writer, we want a similar structure. Anything that > can be simple exposed as data should be (e.g. whether the target is 32- or > 64-bit), anything more complex should be exposed as virtual methods that > are overloaded. The ELF spec makes it very clear what parts of the file > format are common across targets and what the variations are caused by.

Hi, Have you guys considered libelf [1] for implementing ELFWriter? [1] http://people.freebsd.org/~jkoshy/download/libelf/article.html Regards, -Mahadevan.

Alexander Friedman wrote: >>Yeah, you don't want anything like BFD. >> >> >> >>>Here's some things I've discovered so far and associated questions: >>> >>>1) We're really only interested in a writing interface to create the >>>object files. If we get that right we can use dlsym and friends to do >>>the

On 2 May 2010 19:32, Nathan Jeffords <blunted2night at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for both of your feedback, I will attempt to make it fit LLVM coding > standards better before I resubmit my work. You can send me early drafts to run past GCC, send me something that works. As far as the hooks I put in, they are really only there so I could build > the object exporter outside of

> Sorry, I disagree actually the MachineCodeEmitter or the > 'MachineCodeWritter' does not do any file handling at all. Do look at the > code for the MachineCodeWritter and you will see it only writes to memory > and if it reaches the end of the allotted memory I believe higher ordered > logic reallocates a larget buffer and starts again from scratch. This could > be

> Sorry, I disagree actually the MachineCodeEmitter or the > 'MachineCodeWritter' does not do any file handling at all. Do look at the > code for the MachineCodeWritter and you will see it only writes to memory > and if it reaches the end of the allotted memory I believe higher ordered > logic reallocates a larget buffer and starts again from scratch. This could > be

Thanks for both of your feedback, I will attempt to make it fit LLVM coding standards better before I resubmit my work. As far as the hooks I put in, they are really only there so I could build the object exporter outside of LLVM, I think having it built directly in like others is preferable in the end. I do think it would be useful if projects had the option of extending supported formats

On 12 September 2016 at 16:23, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > What's the motivation to not build COFF and Mach-O parts? If you don't need > it, you could just leave it. Are you trying to reduce the executable size? It was just easier to remove coff::link() and mach_o::link() from lld.cpp than to add them to our own build infrastructure

Correct, I am using libCOFF, libELF, and libMACHO all as a library. Ideally all cases would return and report an error and clean up memory, etc, instead of calling exit. However this is sufficient for my needs for now. It is ok for LLD to crash if I supply an invalid command line argument, I won't do that. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists at googlemail.com > wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Aaron Gray < > aaronngray.lists at googlemail.com> wrote: > >> I like the idea of a generic MachineCodeWriter, although I prefer the >>> name 'ObjectFileWriter'... >>> >> >> Thats much more descriptive of

> Aaron, I mailed in the same mail twice (by mistake), you answered both > copies. Differently! > > In any case, I've re-read what exists. I'm dumping what I understand > here, so that we can discuss in detail. I'm using MachO as the example > object format, as the ELF code is totally broken and outdated. Lets > use the following as the basis for our discussion?

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists at googlemail.com>wrote: > On 2 May 2010 19:32, Nathan Jeffords <blunted2night at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for both of your feedback, I will attempt to make it fit LLVM >> coding standards better before I resubmit my work. > > > You can send me early drafts to run past GCC, send me something

On 2 May 2010 10:53, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > Hello, Nathan > I'll let others comment on MC hooks, I just made a very brief look > over the contents of the archive. You can find the comments below. > Yes I looked at this and there are several ways but TargetAsmBackend looked the bast place to deal with the MCStreamer choice for different

We're in the process of importing lld into FreeBSD (along with our Clang 3.9 update project). For now I've removed all but the ELF linker[1]. We have no need for COFF and Mach-O, and we have a bespoke build system for all of our contrib code. I didn't bother adding build support for the source files for non-ELF linkers. Is this something that'd be reasonable / desirable to have

> I've never looked at the MachO code as I do not have such a platform nor do > I know the file format. > > Could we concentrate on the ELF backend, please. I don't mind using the ELF backend as our test case, it just seems that the ELFWriter/ELFCodeEmitter don't even use the BufferBegin/BufferEnd/CurBufferPtr system exposed by the base MachineCodeEmitter. There is a big

... > Thanks, applied in r103150! llvm-mc -filetype=obj probably needs a similar > patch. > > cool!, I will make that change and submit it too. > ... > Yes probably, I don't know what the .def and .scl directives "do" :) > > I think I can figure out the right thing to do here. > Also, w.r.t. section handling stuff, there is this fixme in the asmprinter:

Hello All, I have created a set of patches that get dwarf debugging support working for the COFF object file. I also believe I have fixed what appears to be a bug in how line info sections are referred to from the DW_TAG_compile_unit DIE. I have run some basic tests, analyzed dumps of both the objects files and the final executables, and run a test program against mingw-gdb and everything looks

On Feb 12, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: > Hello All, > > I have created a set of patches that get dwarf debugging support working for the COFF object file. I also believe I have fixed what appears to be a bug in how line info sections are referred to from the DW_TAG_compile_unit DIE. I have run some basic tests, analyzed dumps of both the objects files and the final

Hi Everyone, Chris suggested[1] I should ask for feedback as to whether this is a desired feature before I put too much effort into it, so here goes: I would like to be able to export a symbol that is inside an LLVM structure. This is possible on ELF targets[2], and the attached proof- of-concept patch to AsmWriter makes it work (although in a hackish way that I am NOT suggesting be