similar to: [LLVMdev] FYI: ELFObjectWriter/ELFObjectWriterImpl refactoring TBA (need for ARM/MC/ELF)

On Nov 9, 2010, at 9:31 AM, Jason Kim wrote: > This is a heads up - if you aren't into ELF or ARM, you can stop reading :-) > > I need to add ARM specific relocation support which require some > amount of reorg to the exiting ELFObjectWriter.* to remove x86 biases > (or at least move them elsewhere). > I am currently working on a set of patches, which I will send to >

+llvmdev On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Jason Kim wrote: > >> Refactoring the x86 dependent code from ELFObjectWriter class has >> repercussions among several (conflicting) axes of consideration, >> >> 1. namespace pollution - minimize pollution of the llvm:  namespace >> 2.

I have been working on getting ELF object file writing working for the MBlaze backend. Currently, each supported backend calls ELFObjectWriter::createELFObjectWriter from within the backend's TargetAsmBackend::createObjectWriter method. The createELFObjectWriter method then creates a new backend specific ELFObjectWriter class (either X86ELFObjectWriter or ARMELFObjectWriter) by decoding a

> 5. I could just add the MBlaze backend specific stuff into ELFObjectWriter > like all of the other backends. > Are their any other opinions on this? I personally prefer all of the MBlaze > backend stuff to be contained inside of lib/Target/MBlaze so that I don't > have to hunt around the LLVM source tree when I'm implementing/fixing the > MBlaze backend. If #5 is

> Would you mind start by adding code to the existing file? Once we have > at least two working architectures we should have a better idea on how > to split it. I can do that. As a note, I just sent another email (before I saw this one) showing how much code was needed to add support for the MBlaze backend. Do you want to take a look at that before I merge the MBlaze stuff into

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Wesley Peck <peckw at wesleypeck.com> wrote: > On Nov 19, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > >> The rest is already in Target, so LGTM :-). Move the >> MBlazeELFObjectWriter code to ELFObjectWritter.ccp and lets go from >> there. > > Will do. Again, thank for taking a look at this. Heads up: I just lifted some code

> Heads up: I just lifted some code from X86::RecordRelocation to > ELFObjectWriter - > More to follow. Thanks, How far do you want to go? I was playing with the idea of factoring the relocation recording into another class and moving those to lib/Target/*. That way the ELF writer becomes non-virtual again. > Thanks, > -jason Cheers, Rafael

On Nov 19, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > The rest is already in Target, so LGTM :-). Move the > MBlazeELFObjectWriter code to ELFObjectWritter.ccp and lets go from > there. Will do. Again, thank for taking a look at this. -- Wesley Peck University of Kansas SLDG Laboratory

On Dec 10, 2012, at 1:15 PM, "Carter, Jack" <jcarter at mips.com> wrote: > Here are some examples using the gnu assembler reacting to the same input file with different commandline options. > > These are using the GCC assembler on hello.c > // abi o32, arch mips32r2, relocation model pic+cpic > mips-linux-gnu-as -mips32r2 -EL -KPIC -o hello_gas.o hello_gas.s >

Jim, You are correct: MipsSubtarget. For llvm-mc we have a straight MCSubtargetInfo object. For llc we get a MipsSubtarget object which derives from MipsGenSubtargetInfo which derives from TargetSubtargetInfo which derives from MCSubtargetInfo. The patch I hope to send out for review will do this: Add a new data member to MCSubtargetInfo base class. It will be a set of integers that is used or

Hi Rafael, There are a lot of flags. Here are the ones you ask about: -KPIC, -call_shared generate SVR4 position independent code -call_nonpic generate non-PIC code that can operate with DSOs -mvxworks-pic generate VxWorks position independent code -non_shared do not generate code that can operate with DSOs -xgot assume a 32 bit GOT Just to make things fun, the SGI notion of cpic (call pic)

Here are some examples using the gnu assembler reacting to the same input file with different commandline options. These are using the GCC assembler on hello.c // abi o32, arch mips32r2, relocation model pic+cpic mips-linux-gnu-as -mips32r2 -EL -KPIC -o hello_gas.o hello_gas.s e_flags 0x70001007 EF_MIPS_NOREORDER EF_MIPS_PIC EF_MIPS_CPIC E_MIPS_ABI_O32 EF_MIPS_ARCH_32R2 // abi

> I can do that. As a note, I just sent another email (before I saw this one) showing how much code was needed to add support for the MBlaze backend. Do you want to take a look at that before I merge the MBlaze stuff into ELFObjectWriter.c? Lets see: * Constructor. Sure, this (or a factory function) will have to be per target. * RecordRelocation. I also expect this to be truly target

Eli, Yes, SubtargetInfo is more of a container of convenience since it is available to all the assemblers. Working with the current framework it seemed the least disruptive. I'll describe the problem again. The Mips ABI for better or worse, uses the ELF headers e_flags extensively. The most pressing issue is the need to post the relocation model such as PIC, CPIC or non-shared. The object

I've been working on ELF object support for the MicroBlaze backend and found that ELFObjectWriter assumes the x86/x86-64 architecture. Attached is a patch that makes the 16-bit e_machine value in the ELF header configurable by the target backend. Right now the target backend simply passes the 16-bit value that it would like to use in the ELF header. I have considered a second approach where

Hi Everyone, I am trying to decide on a MC'ized reorg of ARMAsmPrinter for MC/ELF, and had some questions. Currently, it defines quite a few methods like printAddrMode4Operand (linked to ARMInstrInfo.td) that currently assume raw text support in the OutStreamer. Are these methods still supposed to be invoked in the MC'ized path for assembly output? Is JimG's new MC/.s

Attached are the promised patches for the below proposed change. Cheers, Jack ________________________________________ From: Carter, Jack Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:33 PM To: Jim Grosbach Cc: Rafael Espíndola; List Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] [MC] [llvm-mc] Getting target specific information to <target>ELFObjectWriter Jim, You are correct: MipsSubtarget. For llvm-mc we have a

On 6 December 2012 17:49, Carter, Jack <jcarter at mips.com> wrote: > Older targets like Mips had/have assemblers and ABIs that carry a lot of > baggage. > > The small bit of baggage that is giving me fits is that MipsELFObjectWriter > needs to know the relocation model (static,pic,cpic), whether we are using > xgot (-mgot), which abi (old,new), which architecture

On 7 December 2012 18:57, Carter, Jack <jcarter at mips.com> wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > There are a lot of flags. Here are the ones you ask about: > > -KPIC, -call_shared generate SVR4 position independent code > -call_nonpic generate non-PIC code that can operate with DSOs > -mvxworks-pic generate VxWorks position independent code > -non_shared

On Sep 29, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Jason Kim wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I am trying to decide on a MC'ized reorg of ARMAsmPrinter for MC/ELF, > and had some questions. > > Currently, it defines quite a few methods like printAddrMode4Operand > (linked to ARMInstrInfo.td) that currently assume raw text support in > the OutStreamer. Are these methods still supposed to be