similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm-ld ???

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 03:11:39PM -0700, Mehdi Amini wrote: > > > On Sep 4, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 11:13:43AM -0700, Mehdi Amini wrote: > >> > >>> On Sep 4, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> >

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 11:13:43AM -0700, Mehdi Amini wrote: > > > On Sep 4, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:48 AM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Sep 4, 2015, at 12:22 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:48 AM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 4, 2015, at 12:22 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:45 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> > On Sep 2, 2015, at 7:31 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < >>

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:45 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > On Sep 2, 2015, at 7:31 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 01:10:42AM +0000, Eric Christopher wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:43 AM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < > >>

For dogfooding the compiler I normally use is a LTO bootstrap of clang. On linux that is simple to do that since clang passes the correct plugin to the linker. On OS X ld64 uses libLTO.so it finds via DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH. Should clang set that before running the linker? Is there a better way for clang to tell the linker which libLTO.so to use? Cheers, Rafael

On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 01:10:42AM +0000, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:43 AM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < > dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 2015-Aug-31, at 18:09, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:50 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith

> On 2015-Aug-31, at 18:09, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:50 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > On 2015-Aug-31, at 12:21, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > Yep. This is where I was going :) > > Glad I found consensus, but I want to

AFAIK, ld does not use DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH to lookup libLTO.dylib but contains a reference to @executable_path/../lib/libLTO.dylib. The only way I managed to load a different LTO library than the default one is to create a symlink pointing to the actual ld binary (as returned by 'xcrun -find ld') and making sure the library I want to load is placed at ../lib/libLTO.dylib relatively to this

Hi all, libLTO is exposing a very “stable” (in the sense of immutable) C API to be used by linkers (and binutils tools) that manipulate bitcode (like when performing LTO). I’m looking into relaxing the stability concern and design a policy for this API that would allow to deprecate and remove some the APIs exposed here. The MacOS linker (ld64) is one the users of libLTO, but there are others

> On 2015-Aug-31, at 12:21, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > Yep. This is where I was going :) Glad I found consensus, but I want to double-check that this makes sense to add to the driver. I didn't quite think through the implications myself. Since the driver doesn't know if there's any bitcode, or if LTO is going to be invoked, it seems like I'll

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Johan Engelen via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Davide Italiano <dccitaliano at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Johan, >> > >> > Right, per the bug

Dear LLVM community I need some help please. I want to use LLVM's clang and lld within a MacOSX sandboxed app. This is because sandboxing does not allow calls to /usr/bin/clang. The clang binary works fine to compile a file, but ld64.lld comes up with the error "cannot find framework". However similar arguments using /usr/bin/ld instead of ld64.lld works fine. Here are the

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > Hi Johan, > > Right, per the bug this is fixed in lld (and was already handled in gold-plugin), but I guess not in ld64. Note that lld and gold-plugin use the new LTO API, while ld64 (and probably other linkers) are still using the legacy libLTO (which is what ThinLTOCodeGenerator.cpp is part of).

Hello, LTO is currently the only library which is always built as shared, even under Windows. This actually seems to lead to failure using LLVM in another project under Windows, at least for me (the error message complains about "LTO-NOTFOUND.OBJ"). Switching it to a static library fixes the issue (again, at least for me under Windows). The change was made in:

Hi Johan, ld64 only calls functions from llvm/include/llvm-c/lto.h (defined in llvm/tools/lto/lto.cpp) For instance ThinLTOCodeGenerator::addModule is called through thinlto_codegen_add_module(). Apple hasn't released the code for ld64 in Xcode 9 yet, did you check if it is fixed in Xcode 9? (I think I remember fixing it in ld64 but I'm not totally sure...). >From what I can see

Hi folks, I had a few questions in regards to the CentOS AMI: Are there instance backed versions of the AWS marketplace CentOS builds? It looks like there might have been at one point, but I'm not seeing them now, and since they're marked as being from the marketplace we're having some difficulties attaching the volumes to another system to create an instance backed version of it.

Hi all, I have a static library with object files with the same name (not the same full path, but the archive made with llvm-ar does not store the full path). The library contains object files that have been compiled with `-flto=thin` (compiled with LDC, not clang, but that shouldn't matter). When linking to that static library, I get the error: Assertion failed:

Hi. I'm using LLVM 5.0.1 on macOS 10.12. I have a very simple program (program.c): int main() {} When attempting to compile with LLD, I get this output: $ clang -fuse-ld=lld program.c /opt/llvm/5.0.1/bin/ld.lld: error: unknown argument: -no_deduplicate /opt/llvm/5.0.1/bin/ld.lld: error: unknown argument: -dynamic /opt/llvm/5.0.1/bin/ld.lld: error: unknown argument: -arch

I'm confused. libLTO takes bitcode files as input and creates a native object file as output. Why would libLTO create bitcode as output? If so, you're changing the existing API contract. Or are you creating an out-of-band bitcode file, in which case the linker would never see it. ld doesn't have bitcode support, it has libLTO support, and libLTO is what processes the bitcode.

Hello, I searched centos7 in the AWS marketplace for the at-time-of-writing-latest centos7 image: https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B00O7WM7QW?qid=1524138193326&sr=0-1&ref_=srh_res_product_title I built a standard free tier t2.micro from this putative 1803_01 AMI. I see from the docs, this is thus a March 2018 compilation. When I get CLI, I get this: [centos at ip-172-31-27-32