similar to: [LLVMdev] Proposal: MCLinker - an LLVM integrated linker

2011/11/1 Jush Lu (盧育龍) <Jush.Lu at mediatek.com>: > Hi all, > > We are developing a linker, MCLinker. > > MCLinker is a linker for LLVM. It leverages the LLVM machine code (MC) layer to link object files and bitcodes, and generate shared objects and executable files. > > > Motivation > ---------- > > The development of MCLinker was started out of the need

Initial issue is related to R_MIPS_GPREL16/32 relocations. When we calculate such relocations we need to know _gp symbol's value. This value might come from different sources. Usually we setup it using constant offset from the .got section. Also it might be defined by a linker script. And in rare but possible case it comes from .reginfo / .MIPS.options sections. Got example, GNU bfd linker

On 2020-07-29, Eric Christopher wrote: >I think the arguments are largely compatibility for software that's already >deployed and can't easily upgrade, and wanting to ensure a larger time >frame for migration with a fallback if things go wrong. A bridge basically >from what we had to where we'd like to be. > >I think we also need to make the change in mainline lld as

On 03/19/2015 09:24 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Reed Kotler <reed.kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:reed.kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > Well, you are an mclinker contributor > > > Me personally? Not that I know of. Sorry. I thought i had seen your name in an mclinker commit. > > and Google uses mclinker >

I'd like to make LLD embed version information so that we can determine if an executable was created by LLD and if that's the case which version of LLD. ld.bfd doesn't seem to embed any information, so we cannot tell whether an executable was linked by ld.bfd or not easily. ld.gold embeds a string "GNU gold <version>" as ".note.gnu.gold-version" section

Well, you are an mclinker contributor and Google uses mclinker and now it's broken as the result of your change. I still don't see any justification to making a change in a public interface that is used by other non LLVM projects to fix some issue with clang warnings. People should be able to derive from those classes. I can't understand your reasoning as to why these classes must

As I mentioned in the thread (to many people who don't have time to read the discussions), pushing https://reviews.llvm.org/D84825 restores the original behavior. The same effect as one would get by reverting all related patches. If someone gives me an approval, I'll push it immediately. I already get verbal LGTM from Peter. > With respect I think the "request for changes"

>On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:32 AM Alexey Lapshin ><alapshin at accesssoftek.com> wrote: >> >> >On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 1:55 PM Alexey Lapshin <a.v.lapshin at mail.ru> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Пятница, 17 июля 2020, 19:42 +03:00 от David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>: >> >> > >> >> >On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at

Can we please just revert back to what we had before until the discussion about the desired behaviour and how to get there reaches a conclusion? In particular, I would like to merge that revert to the 11.x branch. At this point in the release process, I'm not keen on taking any patch that changes the behavior to something that hasn't been well tested from sitting in trunk for a while. On

Created https://reviews.llvm.org/D84825 to be used for release/11.x I haven't seen a strong argument for changing other .debug_* but in any case I don't want to continue debating on this topic. * .debug_ranges & .debug_loc: -2 (lld<11: 0+addend) * .debug_*: 0 (lld<11: 0+addend, lld HEAD: -1) On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:47 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

On 03/19/2015 09:38 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Reed Kotler <reed.kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:reed.kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > On 03/19/2015 09:24 AM, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Reed Kotler >> <reed.kotler at imgtec.com <mailto:reed.kotler at

Hi All, In general I think we should adopt Dave's plan here. The number of consumers that can (and have) been caught off guard by this change is just too high. At the very least I think we should move this to opt in to the new tombstoning behavior by default and at most migrate to bfd's behavior for both the current release and in the current tree. If we want to make this sort of change

//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// // FalseParser //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// class FalseParser : public parser<bool> { public: explicit FalseParser(Option &O) : parser<bool>(O) { } // parse - Return true on error. bool parse(cl::Option& O, StringRef ArgName, StringRef

On 2020-05-28, David Blaikie wrote: >On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:52 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> >wrote: > >> As has been mentioned elsewhere, Sony generally fixes up references from >> debug info to stripped functions (of any length) using -1, because that’s a >> less-likely-to-be-real address than 0x0 or 0x1. (0x0 is a typical base >>

On 2020-07-24, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev wrote: >Sounds good to me from a release perspective. I think we need more input from the triage of https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2291352 whether it is just .debug_line or .debug_* >On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 7:53 AM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev ><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi All,

One could argue that mclinker is doing something good or not by how it's using this class but I don't see the need for parser<bool> to be final. That is a subjective opinion that mclinker needs to be changed. I think that "final" was added to some of these command line classes to avoid some kind of clang warning. That seems wrong to me that the tools are dictating

On 03/19/2015 08:55 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Reed Kotler <Reed.Kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:Reed.Kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > One could argue that mclinker is doing something good or not by > how it's using this class > but I don't see the need for parser<bool> to be final. That is a >

On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 10:34:43PM +0800, Jush Lu (?c?|?s) wrote: > Hi all, > > We are developing a linker, MCLinker. > > MCLinker is a linker for LLVM. It leverages the LLVM machine code (MC) > layer to link object files and bitcodes, and generate shared objects > and executable files. Cool! A linker has been the largest gap for FreeBSD to move to a completely BSD

On 03/19/2015 09:57 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Reed Kotler <reed.kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:reed.kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > On 03/19/2015 09:38 AM, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Reed Kotler >> <reed.kotler at imgtec.com <mailto:reed.kotler at

Hi, Brooks, Since this project is helped by many BSD guys in Taiwan, one of MCLinker's main objectives is make direct contribution to the BSD realm. Please feel free to give us suggestions to make sure we can achieve this goal. Any comments are appreciated. We realized open discussion on the mailing list is necessary, and we hope this thread can be a beginning to openly discuss the project