similar to: [LLVMdev] IS anyone sucessfully sing the MachO backend

On May 15, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Aaron Gray wrote: > Hi, > > I am working on the direct object module emission, and am wondering > if anyone is successfully using the MachO backend. > Nope, it's just as broken (if not more so) than the ELF writer, don't worry about breaking it. If you wanted to #if 0 it out, that would also be fine with me. -Chris -------------- next

HI Chris, Okay, I was just wondering its status. Do you know what is broken about it ? Thanks, Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Lattner To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] IS anyone sucessfully sing the MachO backend On May 15, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Aaron Gray wrote: Hi, I am working on the direct

Is anyone using the MachO Writer ? If so do you have any test cases as I am moving it over to use the prototype direct object emission code and I need test cases to verify it working correctly. Many thanks in advance, Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

>> 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.

I doubt anyone is using it, as it is not complete. On Jun 1, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Aaron Gray wrote: > Is anyone using the MachO Writer ? > > If so do you have any test cases as I am moving it over to use the > prototype direct object emission code and I need test cases to > verify it working correctly. > > Many thanks in advance, > > Aaron > >

> 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 object format, as the ELF code is totally broken and outdated.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 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

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 the functionality. > Sorry, I disagree actually the MachineCodeEmitter or the 'MachineCodeWritter' does not do any file

Hi! I think llvm-mc did amazing work and I'm stunned ;). - So I start reading source-code and making notes. To my question: At which state is the disassembly for PEcoff or ELF? I read the blog (http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/intro-to-llvm-mc-project.html): """ The MC components have been designed to be object file independent (e.g. work for MachO, ELF, PE-COFF etc) but only have

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? There are 3 classes which

> 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

>I like the idea of a generic MachineCodeWriter, although I prefer the >name 'ObjectFileWriter'... Thats much more descriptive of the functionality. >I think we need to take a hard look at which bits of the >Writer/Emitter infrastructure are needed for what tasks (Object File >Emittion, JIT, etc.) and make sure that our abstractions are flexible >enough... I would

> Currently, the MachO and ELF Writers and MachineCodeEmitters are > hard-coded into LLVMTargetMachine and llc. I am also interested in working on this area and interested in writting a COFF file backend. > In other words, the 'object file generation' capabilities of the > Common Code Generator are not generic. I was looking at making a parallel class to MachineCodeEmitter,

I like the idea of a generic MachineCodeWriter, although I prefer the name 'ObjectFileWriter'... I think we need to take a hard look at which bits of the Writer/Emitter infrastructure are needed for what tasks (Object File Emittion, JIT, etc.) and make sure that our abstractions are flexible enough... As it stands at the moment, the Writer and Emitter classes could definately be merged

Currently, the MachO and ELF Writers and MachineCodeEmitters are hard-coded into LLVMTargetMachine and llc. In other words, the 'object file generation' capabilities of the Common Code Generator are not generic. LLVMTargetMachine::addPassesToEmitFile explicitly checks whether the derived backend TargetMachine implements one of getMachOWriterInfo or getELFWriterInfo, and returns a

Nate, Right, okay. I was also planning on looking at what the assembly output generates and "emulating" its output. So I should be able to use the 'test/CodeGen/PowerPC' tests once I have augmented the MachO Writer PowerPC output. Does this seem like the right and sensible approach ? Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: Nate Begeman To: LLVM Developers Mailing

> 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

With the correct list this time. On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > Hi, > in the last month I spent some time implementing the missing MachO > specific features in llvm-readobj, and converting all the remaining > tests that used macho-dump to the new format. > llvm-readobj should have all the functionality that macho-dump had. If

Has anyone sucessfull update the kernel 2.4 to 2.6 on a centos server? If yes how? And what is important to now for the update. Maybe anyone has an faq for that. thanks for help Sven -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050221/2506f62d/attachment-0004.html>