similar to: [LLVMdev] How to carry a command line option down to the Object Writer

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

Hi Jim, Thanks for reviewing the patch. I couldn't get rid of STLExtras.h, but other than that, I followed all the suggestions in your email. Please let me know if you notice anything else that needs fixing. On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Akira, > > This is looking good. Some specific comments on the details below. > >

Hi Akira, Just two very minor things that I missed the first time around. 1. The 'fixup" member of ELFRelocation entry should be "Fixup" instead. 2. Since we're always passing in a non-NULL fixup, that should probably be a reference, not a pointer. Good for commit with those tweaks. Thanks! -Jim On Mar 23, 2012, at 1:07 PM, Akira Hatanaka wrote: > Hi Jim, >

Hi Akira, This is looking good. Some specific comments on the details below. Thanks! Jim > diff --git a/include/llvm/MC/MCELFObjectWriter.h b/include/llvm/MC/MCELFObjectWriter.h > index 6e9f5d8..220ecd0 100644 > --- a/include/llvm/MC/MCELFObjectWriter.h > +++ b/include/llvm/MC/MCELFObjectWriter.h > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ > #include "llvm/MC/MCObjectWriter.h" >

> Are there other names that are poor choices and are lingering in our > codebases? I'm willing to sign up to do more renames while I'm at > this, so this is a chance to get someone else to do the heavy lifting. > =] Class names too, not just file/directory names? I've been trolling through the integrated assembler lately, and had a real "can't tell the players

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Carter, Jack wrote: > >> Jim, >> >> Ok, you are where I am in the understanding. This is exactly what I do for relocations applied to code. Now I want to apply fixup information to relocations applied to data. >> >> The issue I was having was

Hi Jack, I'm not 100% up on how MIPS represents jump tables, so take with a grain of salt and all that. Normally how this stuff works is that the streamer will create Fixups (MCDataFragment::addFixup()) for anything that might require a relocation. That may come from the generic streamer stuff (see MCObjectStreamer::EmitValueImpl() for example), or from the target's MCCodeEmitter (for

On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Carter, Jack wrote: > Jim, > > Ok, you are where I am in the understanding. This is exactly what I do for relocations applied to code. Now I want to apply fixup information to relocations applied to data. > > The issue I was having was the difficulty of subclassing MCELFStreamer. Or are you saying that I should be messing with the base MCELFStreamer

Jim, Ok, you are where I am in the understanding. This is exactly what I do for relocations applied to code. Now I want to apply fixup information to relocations applied to data. The issue I was having was the difficulty of subclassing MCELFStreamer. Or are you saying that I should be messing with the base MCELFStreamer for a specific fixup. One of the issues I hit initially with llvm is that

Hello, I'm trying to use MC to assemble some code into a memory buffer. Whilst trying this, I ran into a segfault that I was able to reproduce using the llvm-mc tool (which makes me think it's not just me using the library incorrectly.) The bug looks like this (the binary is from a clean build of the 2.8 release): $ cat test/asm1.s movl %ebx, %eax $ ~/root/bin/llvm-mc --filetype=obj

Here is the patch. On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Yes, the relocation entries have to be reordered so that the > got16/lo16 or hi16/lo16 pairs appear consecutively in the relocation > table. As a result, relocations can appear in a different order than > the instructions that they're for. > > For

Hi Jim, Yes, the relocation entries have to be reordered so that the got16/lo16 or hi16/lo16 pairs appear consecutively in the relocation table. As a result, relocations can appear in a different order than the instructions that they're for. For example, in this code, the post-RA scheduler inserts an instruction with relocation %got(body_ok) between %got(scope_top) and %lo(scope_top). $ cat

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Olivier Meurant <meurant.olivier at gmail.com> wrote: > New patch taking Eli's comments into account. Comments inline. If you have commit access, I'd fire away. If not, I can. diff --git include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h index 07ca070..afff96e 100644 --- include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h +++ include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h

+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.

New patch. Thanks for all of your comments ! > Comments inline. If you have commit access, I'd fire away. If not, I can. I don't have commit access, if you find it ok, please commit it. :) Olivier. On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Olivier Meurant > <meurant.olivier at gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Olivier Meurant <meurant.olivier at gmail.com> wrote: >> Seems reasonable, but I haven't looked at the code yet. I would >> suggest trying to split your work up into separate patches which >> implement incremental pieces of functionality, then submitting them to >> llvm-commits for review. That is much easier for us to deal with

New patch taking Eli's comments into account. Olivier. On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Olivier Meurant > <meurant.olivier at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Seems reasonable, but I haven't looked at the code yet. I would >>> suggest trying to split your work up into separate

On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:04:38PM -0500, Brady Patterson wrote: > The patch I submitted only reads AIFF files. I'm about to start the patch to > write AIFF files. > > To do so, we need a command-line option to specify AIFF. My inclination is to > add an option: > > -ff { raw | wav | aif } > > In some sense, "-ff" is silly since it probably stands

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Josh Coalson wrote: (Matt wrote): > > A more flexible approach might be to use libaudiofile or a similar facility, > > so that multiple input formats can be automatically recognized, and future > > formats supported in a generalized way. Agree completely. I did this because I wanted to get something working with as small a change as possible. > Brady, I

How about the opposite? What I would like to see is FLAC support in libaudiofile, so applications written with libaudiofile could transparently take advantage on FLAC's compression. Ironically I guess it would still make sense to use libaudiofile in FLAC for getting input. Mmmm, cyclic dependancies... Or is that just a stupid idea? Dave On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 13:10, Matt Zimmerman wrote: >