similar to: [LLVMdev] [lld] -emit-yaml doesnot contain linker added symbols specified with command line options

Shankar, The LinkingContext has a addImplictFiles() method that is supposed to call the Writer and give it a chance to add any implicit files. Is the problem that the -u atoms are not attached to that implicit file? Or that the implicit file is not getting added? Or that this got lost in the transition from InputFiles to InputGraph? -Nick On Aug 28, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Shankar Easwaran

Hi Nick, The problem is when the -emit-yaml option is used, the writer is set to the YAML writer. The YAML writer doesnot have anything to add here. The problem can be solved by having the YAML writer append a list of undefined atoms specified by the -u option, but the problem I have is each flavor has extra command line options for which it wants to create a DefinedAtom/UndefinedAtom. The

On Aug 28, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi Nick, > > The problem is when the -emit-yaml option is used, the writer is set to the YAML writer. Ah! > > The YAML writer does not have anything to add here. > > The problem can be solved by having the YAML writer append a list of undefined atoms specified by the -u option, but

Hi Nick, >> The YAML writer does not have anything to add here. >> >> The problem can be solved by having the YAML writer append a list of undefined atoms specified by the -u option, but the problem I have is each flavor has extra command line options >> for which it wants to create a DefinedAtom/UndefinedAtom. The flavor also may want to add extra linker internal files in

Hi Nick, On 8/28/2013 6:37 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote > $cat 1.c > int _start() { return 0; } > $gcc -c 1.c > $ld -u myundef 1.o > ==> Does not throw any error, the resolver was hinted that myundef was a undefined weak symbol. > Wow. Reading the gnu ld man page, that is not obvious. How can you make a non-weak undefined on the command line? That is, how can you force and error

On Aug 28, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi Nick, > >> Also for the case of -u, the Driver can make generic UndefinedAtoms. > ELF would want to treat the undefined symbols as a weak undefined symbols. So the driver cant create undefined atoms. > > Below is an example :- > > $cat 1.c > int _start() { return 0; }

Thanks for the reply Nick. I will use the Writer::addFiles functionality. Do you want to move the SimpleFile class to lld/Core ? It might be useful for other types of object files too(like for ELF here). How does typeFirstInSection/typeLastinSection know that the addresses that need to be used for those symbols are the symbol values for the section start / section end ? I didnt see

On Dec 7, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > We have few symbols like __bss_start, __bss_end, which are Undefined symbols in the code. > > I want a way in the Reader to create specific atoms before the linker bootstraps. > > I didnt find a way to do that with the existing interfaces. > > The way it needs to work is as below :- > > 1) ReaderELF creates

Hi Nick, We have few symbols like __bss_start, __bss_end, which are Undefined symbols in the code. I want a way in the Reader to create specific atoms before the linker bootstraps. I didnt find a way to do that with the existing interfaces. The way it needs to work is as below :- 1) ReaderELF creates Absolute symbols (for __bss_start, __bss_end etc) 2) ReaderELF reads each file and adds

Hi Nick, Read this along with this example extract: ld -flavor gnu main.o thread.o --start-group libc.a libpthread.a --end-group function.o main.o has atoms ------------------------ main (defined) printf(undefined) fn(undefined) thread.o has atoms ----------------------------- pthread_create (undefined) libc.a(printf.o) has atoms ------------------------------------ printf(defined)

Hi, Attached is the pdf of the operation to make things easier to read. Thanks Shankar Easwaran On 9/20/2013 7:04 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > My email client spoilt the whole email, will create a pdf and send it. > > On 9/20/2013 7:00 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: >> Hi Nick, >> >> On 9/20/2013 5:59 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: >>> On Sep 20, 2013, at 3:42 PM,

Hi Nick, On 12/7/2012 4:59 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > > We have a similar requirement in darwin's ld64 linker, but even more general. Any binary can do the following to introspect itself: > > struct stuff { int a; int b; }; > > extern struct stuff* stuff_start __asm("section$start$__DATA$__my"); > extern struct stuff* stuff_end

Shankar, I think your proposal and mine are pretty much the same. The difference is passing back info to the InputGraph as a parameter in nextFile() vs as a separate method call. My original draft email had a parameter in nextFile(), but it seemed a little confusing because the information was referring to the previous file. That is, if the current resolver state has newDefinedAtoms, that

On Sep 20, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > Rui, > > I like this in general, but have a few questions. > > On Sep 20, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > >> 2. We would instead add a new method nextFile() to LinkingContext,

Shankar and I discussed input file handling, and we came up with a design that may greatly simplify the input file handling, while giving more flexibility to developer to support complicated options, such as --{start,end}-group, -z rescan or -z rescan-now. It'd worth pursuing, so here's the idea: 1. We wouldn't probably want to let Resolver to handle the input graph directly, for we

Hi, With the inputGraph now, lld models command line options, input files as nodes in the InputGraph called InputElements. In the current approach, each InputElement is converted to a LinkerInput, which works if all lld deals with individual files. Dealing with ControlNodes (Groups), have a problem with it, on how to model that as a LinkerInput. Joerg/Me were chatting on the IRC about this

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

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

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

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