similar to: [LLVMdev] [lld] driver

On May 4, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: >> I'd like to do some more work on the darwin executable writer. But most of the work is mach-o variations that are driven by command line options. So I wanted to work out with you how command line processing will work. >> >> Looking at

On May 4, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > On May 4, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: >> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: >>> I'd like to do some more work on the darwin executable writer. But most of the work is mach-o variations that are driven by command line options. So I wanted

Michael, I'm looking at flushing out the mach-o driver and targetinfo. Can we rename the "ld64" flavor to "darwin". The command line tool on MacOSX is called "ld" - just like on unix. The name ld64 is the current source repository name for the linker. Once lld takes over, the term ld64 won't mean anything. I've worked through adding DarwinOpts.td

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > Michael, > > I'm looking at flushing out the mach-o driver and targetinfo. > > Can we rename the "ld64" flavor to "darwin". The command line tool on MacOSX is called "ld" - just like on unix. The name ld64 is the current source repository name for the linker. Once

On Jan 9, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Sean Silva wrote: >> Maybe the first version could be just ELF centric. > > The consensus in this thread seems to be that it should be in the > frontend. Nick pointed out that since linker scripts can define > symbols, they need to be handled before the writer; I don't see any > way to avoid that. Could you elaborate on the concrete reasons

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:13 AM, <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > I dont think any other format has the functionality of sections and > segments with segment and section permissions etc. > > Are you planning to mimic 1-1 lld to ld linker script functionality ? No, there's lots of arcane things that GNU ld has (like compatibility with a completely different linker script

On Jan 24, 2013, at 2:45 AM, Michael Spencer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: >> I've worked through adding DarwinOpts.td new DarwinDriver class, but have some questions about wiring it up. Currently the instantiated Driver transforms the command line arguments in to "core" arguments which is passed to

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > We need to be careful about what we mean by "frontend" and "backend" > of lld. Yeah, that terminology was really vague. I identify "frontend" with the driver (GNU ld, link.exe, ld64, etc) and "backend" with ReaderWriter (i.e. roughly the object file formats). > The

On Oct 19, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > Hi, > > I have started to work on support for Reading archive libraries in lld and thought of using the llvm/lib/ArchiveReader for this. > > The ArchiveReader doesnot fully support GNU archive libraries (thin archives), do you think we should continue using llvm/lib/ArchiveReader ? > > I was chatting with Michael and

I've run into some issues with the current atom object model that I would like to fix. The current 4 atoms are not expressive enough. We need to be able to serialize a larger set of atoms, many of which are format specific. The set of common atoms (shared between all formats) should be the set that the resolver requires to work. SharedLibrary is not included in this (by looking at the source

Hi, I have started to work on support for Reading archive libraries in lld and thought of using the llvm/lib/ArchiveReader for this. The ArchiveReader doesnot fully support GNU archive libraries (thin archives), do you think we should continue using llvm/lib/ArchiveReader ? I was chatting with Michael and looks like there have been discussions and small sketches done on reading archive

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > The SECTION and MEMORY seem doable in lld as part of the ELF > Writer. MEMORY and most aspects of SECTIONS are effectively syntax sugar and the rest of LLD doesn't need to even be aware of it; the ldscript language processor will desugar it. The same is true of many other linker script constructs that I

Hi Nick, Here is my understanding, 1) lld-core creates a ReaderOptionsArchive class with the (Reader, CommandLine options flag) 2) lld-core creates an object of type ReaderArchive(ReaderOptions), that users would subclass (off ArchiveLibraryFile) a) GNUArchiveLibrary b) BSDArchiveLibrary b) MachOArchiveLibrary c) COFFArchiveLibrary 3) ReaderArchive has two functions

Hi all, I've been thinking about how best to represent MachO's LC_REEXPORT_DYLIB (used even by libSystem.dylib to provide its various sub-components[*]). It looks like this functionality would naturally fall into the InputGraph, in analogy with Groups and Archives. Unfortunately, it's rather more dynamic than the existing cases: we don't know the needed files before parsing the

Hi Nick, On 9/4/2013 4:04 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > I do think we have too many classes. Agree. > I thought InputGraph was going to replace InputFiles. Interesting idea. > It seems link LinkerInput could be merged into FileNode. Agree. > > Originally InputFiles was the abstract interface that he Resolver used to see all the inputs. If InputGraph supported the methods

On Sep 4, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 9/4/2013 4:04 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: >> I do think we have too many classes. > Agree. >> I thought InputGraph was going to replace InputFiles. > Interesting idea. >> It seems link LinkerInput could be merged into FileNode. > Agree. >> >> Originally InputFiles

On Jul 18, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Clow, Marshall wrote: > On Jul 18, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: >> On Jul 18, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: >>> I've run into some issues with the current atom object model that I >>> would like to fix. >>> >>> The current 4 atoms are not expressive enough. We need to be able to >>>

I do think we have too many classes. I thought InputGraph was going to replace InputFiles. It seems link LinkerInput could be merged into FileNode. Originally InputFiles was the abstract interface that he Resolver used to see all the inputs. If InputGraph supported the methods forEachInitalAtom() and searchLibraries() then we could get rid of InputFiles and have the Resolver uses InputGraph

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > Shankar, > > Do you mean add a method like: > > virtual unsigned contentHash() const = 0; > > or maybe: > > virtual llvm::hash_code contentHash() const = 0 > > to lld::DefinedAtom? That seems good to me. We just need to figure out > what should happen with atoms not

Hi Nick, In addition to what you mentioned, I think there needs a special *AliasReference* that need to be created which the DefinedAtom points to. Thanks Shankar Easwaran -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a fallback mechanism for undefined atom. Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:15:49 -0700 From: kledzik at apple.com <kledzik at apple.com> Reply-To: