similar to: [LLVMdev] generating ELF files on non-ELF platforms with MC

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] generating ELF files on non-ELF platforms with MC"

2012 Jan 09
1
[LLVMdev] FW: generating ELF files on non-ELF platforms with MC
Ping, Apart from Anton's concerns (which I think are manageable) and Micah's support, I received no reply on this. Does there exist a way to tell MC to generate and ELF container for code on Windows? If not, I'm willing to submit a patch to fix this, but would like some opinions on the best direction to take here. The proposed "llvm::TargetSpec class"
2012 Jan 09
0
[LLVMdev] generating ELF files on non-ELF platforms with MC
Hi, > Would it be OK to add "ELF" to Triple::EnvironmentType? It seems like a plausible choice since MachO is there. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether it makes sense to make it mutually exclusive with the other members of EnvironmentType (GNU, GNUEABI, EABI). EABI and GNUEABI imply ELF. GNU in practice does not need to imply ELF, but is used in the ARM world as "the
2014 Mar 10
2
[LLVMdev] A bug or a feature?
Hi, I've run Clang Static Analyzer checker alpha.cplusplus.NewDeleteLeaks over LLVM codebase to detect false-positives and at the same time eliminate memory leaks. The majority of leaks were detected in lib/Target/* and lib/MC/*. In all cases the similar trick was detected as a leak (example from lib/Target/Sparc/MCTargetDesc/SparcMCTargetDesc.cpp) : static MCStreamer
2014 Mar 10
3
[LLVMdev] MCJIT problem on native 'ppc64' target
I am having an issue with MCJIT on the ppc64 machine architecture. The symptom is that for a particular IR function the target machine won't emit neither an object nor an assembly file and subsequent calling the pointer to function results in a segfault. My application generates on the fly several functions with the builder and executes them with the MCJIT engine. I came across this
2017 Oct 11
3
TargetRegistry and MC object ownership.
Hi All, While trying to put together an MC-based assembler the other day, I again encountered MC's non-obvious memory ownership rules. The most egregious example of these is MCObjectStreamer's destructor: MCObjectStreamer::~MCObjectStreamer() { delete &Assembler->getBackend(); delete &Assembler->getEmitter(); delete &Assembler->getWriter(); delete Assembler;
2016 May 21
1
Using an MCStreamer Directly to produce an object file?
llvm-dev, Thanks so much in advance for any help, tips, or advice you may be able to offer me. I'm going to try to avoid the big-picture description of the project I'm working on, and only talk about the parts that I have trouble with / currently need to implement. -- I've been starting by taking the source code from the "llvm-mc" tool, and working that down into a
2012 Sep 05
0
[LLVMdev] RFC: MCJIT enhancements
Chris, are you OK with the below changes to the Triple? -Jim On Sep 4, 2012, at 5:21 PM, "Kaylor, Andrew" <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: > ping > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Kaylor, Andrew > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:10 AM > To: Jim Grosbach; Pawel Bylica; Chris Lattner > Cc: llvmdev
2012 Sep 05
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: MCJIT enhancements
ping From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Kaylor, Andrew Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:10 AM To: Jim Grosbach; Pawel Bylica; Chris Lattner Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu (LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu) Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: MCJIT enhancements Has anything more happened with this? -Andy From: Jim Grosbach [mailto:grosbach at apple.com] Sent:
2012 Sep 07
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: MCJIT enhancements
On Sep 4, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > Chris, are you OK with the below changes to the Triple? If at all possible, I'd like to keep the triple changes separate (separate patch series and separate discussion) from the other MCJIT changes. How dependent are the MCJIT improvements on the Triple changes? As you've noticed, Triple is not a
2013 Feb 13
2
[LLVMdev] TargetSpec
This is about the target specification proposal described in http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TargetSpec.txt At the end of the year I spent a while on this, partly as a foot-wetting exercise for parts of LLVM I wouldn't otherwise look at. I did a partial implementation; enough to understand most of the issues (I hope) and get a clear idea of what would need to be done to phase it in. I
2013 Feb 13
0
[LLVMdev] TargetSpec
The simplest solution is probably to just break it out into its own library. -- Sean Silva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130213/9ab171c0/attachment.html>
2011 Dec 19
2
[LLVMdev] Disassembly arbitrary machine-code byte arrays
Hi, My apologies if this appears to be a very trivial question -- I have tried to solve this on my own and I am stuck. Any assistance that could be provided would be immensely appreciated. What is the absolute bare minimum that I need to do to disassemble an array of, say, ARM machine code bytes? Or an array of Thumb machine code bytes? For example, I might have an array of unsigned chars -- how
2013 Sep 25
1
[LLVMdev] arm64 / iOS support
Attached is a working patch set for llvm to be able to emit arm64 (currently as triple aarch64-apple-ios) mach-o object files, in case someone is interested. I'm not sure if the llvm maintainers want the patch given the previous message that there's going to be an official patch set from apple to support this, but here is mine. What works (tested on an iPhone 5S): * objc strings,
2011 Feb 23
2
[LLVMdev] New TargetSpec 'llvmnote'
On Feb 23, 2011, at 2:47 AM, David Given wrote: > On 02/23/11 02:46, Chris Lattner wrote: > [...] >> Remember that this isn't intended to be something users deal with, it's just an internal implementation detail of the compiler, debugger, nm implementation, etc. > > Can I put in a plea to have as much of LLVM as possible *not* require > knowledge of a single,
2011 Feb 24
0
[LLVMdev] New TargetSpec 'llvmnote'
On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote: >> >> On the other hand, if "Byte Order" makes sense to include, should >> other parts of targetdata be included? Pointer size seems the next >> most desirable -- endianness and pointer size would be sufficient for >> many elf tools, for example. However, the other parts of >> targetdata could
2011 Feb 23
2
[LLVMdev] New TargetSpec 'llvmnote'
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:43:35PM -0800, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > This leads to a number of problems in LLVM: > > - we have a bunch of duplication > > - we have confusion about what a triple is (normalized or not) > > - no good way to tell if a triple is normalized > > - no good, centralized way to reason about
2011 Dec 19
0
[LLVMdev] Disassembly arbitrary machine-code byte arrays
Hi Aiden, The easiest thing I can do is to point you to the source of the "llvm-mc" tool, which does exactly what you ask in its "-disassemble" mode. The code is rather small, so it should be easy to work out. tools/llvm-mc Cheers, James -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Aidan Steele Sent:
2011 Feb 23
7
[LLVMdev] New TargetSpec 'llvmnote'
Hi All, There is recently a discussion on the LLDB list about how to deal with targets, and our current mismash of llvm::Triple and the various subclasses of TargetSubtarget leave a lot to be desired. GNU target triples are really important as input devices to the compiler (users want to specify them) but they aren't detailed enough for internal clients. Anyway, in short, I think that we
2023 Mar 26
1
[Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add dynamic FDB test
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:44, Ido Schimmel <idosch at nvidia.com> wrote: >> + $MZ $swp1 -c 1 -p 128 -t udp "sp=54321,dp=12345" \ >> + -a $mac -b `mac_get $h2` -A 192.0.2.1 -B 192.0.2.2 -q >> + tc_check_packets "dev $swp2 egress" 1 1 >> + check_fail $? "Dynamic FDB entry did not age out" > > Shouldn't this be check_err()? After
1998 Jan 15
2
R-beta:0.61.1 Problem with "make docs"
The problem is the following # make docs Make: Don't know how to make ../src/library/*/man/*.Rd. Stop. *** Exit 1 (ignored) # I am using a DEC alpha 200/4/233 with Digital Unix 3.2D My previous version of R was R-0.50-a1. I have installed around 3 or 4 previous versions on the same system and never had a problem (but, then the Makefile was very different). The first make to compile