similar to: [LLVMdev] Unreachable in llvm-nm in Debug mode

Thanks Eli, I should have looked in bugzilla... Cheers, Renato On 6 Sep 2013 21:18, "Eli Friedman" <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > >> Folks, >> >> I'm seeing this unreachable on test/Object/archive-symtab.test in debug >> mode: >> >> $

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Songmao <smtian at ingenic.cn> wrote: > Michael, >    I have rework the patch according to your suggestion.  And I have read > binutil/objdump source code and found that it has a logic that if there's no > symtab, it will use dynsym, which is missing in llvm-objdump. > > Songmao > @@ -747,12 +747,28 @@ error_code

I've also been looking at debugging with ELF and noticed the same problem as Renato. I just sent a patch to llvmcommits that fixes the problem. DW_at_stmt_list needs to emit a label(and therefore a relocation) for the offset rather a constant 0, then the linker can fixup the offset as it shuffles object files around. Krister On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at

2012/1/23 Bendersky, Eli <eli.bendersky at intel.com>: > Hi, > > I would like to examine the implications you mention in more detail. > Thank you! > (1) Symbol address > According to the ELF standard, in a symbol table entry st_value means: "In relocatable files, st_value holds a section offset for a defined symbol. That is, > st_value is an offset from the

Hi, I would like to examine the implications you mention in more detail. (1) Symbol address According to the ELF standard, in a symbol table entry st_value means: "In relocatable files, st_value holds a section offset for a defined symbol. That is, st_value is an offset from the beginning of the section that st_shndx identifies." (*) Therefore, when queried about a symbol's

On 25 August 2010 18:54, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com> wrote: > See "DwarfDebug problem with line section" thread on llvmdev. Bottom line, > we may need a target specific patch for targets that do not follow dwarf > standard (as per my reading) in this particular case. Hi Devang, Ok, got the background, but will reply on this email. As far as I understood,

Hi Eric, Am Sun, 14 Feb 2016 01:26:22 +0800 schrieb Eric Yau <ericyaukhy at hotmail.com>: > I have no experience to use tcpdump, here is the output from TCPdump for > your reference. Any idea? A good start for understanding tcpdump is to imagine beforehand which packets you do expect (request, response with source and target addresses). > Use my home PC to ping company PC >

See "DwarfDebug problem with line section" thread on llvmdev. Bottom line, we may need a target specific patch for targets that do not follow dwarf standard (as per my reading) in this particular case. - Devang On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to compile two files together with debug information

Hi Eric, Am Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:51:59 +0800 schrieb Eric Yau <ericyaukhy at hotmail.com>: > [..] > Question: On home side (OpenWrt Router) and company side (Windows 7 PC), I > can ping all the IP addresses. But on Home PC (Behind the OPENWRT Router), I > cannot ping to Company (Windows 7 PC) and Company (Server A). The PING > RESULT is destination host unreachable. Any idea

Dear Lance, It is not work. Any idea? Regards, Eric -----Original Message----- From: Lance Fredrickson [mailto:lancethepants at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 12:53 AM To: tinc at tinc-vpn.org Subject: Re: Tinc Router Mode - PING RESULT is destination host unreachable On 2/16/2016 9:04 AM, Eric Yau wrote: > Hi Lars, > > Once I modify the firewall FORWARD rule to

El 12 de febrero de 2016 16:51:59 CET, Eric Yau <ericyaukhy at hotmail.com> escribi?: >Hi All, > > > >I am trying to setup the site-to-site VPN with TINC for connect my home >network to company network. Here is the IP allocation and configuration >for >your reference. > > > >Home PC (192.168.1.2) ?-----? Home (OPENWRT Router, 192.168.1.1, >10.0.0.1)

On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 08:56:49AM -0600, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > On 4/9/2011 6:09 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > > Hi Jack, thanks for the numbers. Any chance of analysing why gcc does better on > > those where it does much better than dragonegg? > > > > Ciao, Duncan. > Also, does -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-enable-gcc-optzns get Dragonegg to > match GCC performance

Michael, I have rework the patch according to your suggestion. And I have read binutil/objdump source code and found that it has a logic that if there's no symtab, it will use dynsym, which is missing in llvm-objdump. Songmao -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0002-Fix-the-address-calculation-for-llvm-objdump.patch Type: text/x-patch

Hi Lars, Once I modify the firewall FORWARD rule to ACCEPT. I can ping and access my company PC at home. All traffic can pass through that. But I think it is not a good practice to change the FORWARD rule to ACCEPT. Any idea to check and just allow the tinc VPN traffic only? Instead of allow everything pass through the FORWARD rule. Regards, Eric -----Original Message----- From: Lars Kruse

While working on some other changes I came across a problem where ELFObjectFile::getSymbolFileOffset was returning a different value than I expected in the case where the symbol in question was a section. Looking at the code, it seems obviously wrong, but I didn't want to just commit my change without at least asking if anyone knew of a good reason for the current behavior. I know there

Hi Lars, I have no experience to use tcpdump, here is the output from TCPdump for your reference. Any idea? Use my home PC to ping company PC 01:00:25.154706 ethertype IPv4, IP 192.168.1.2 > 10.0.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 1, seq 17, length 40 01:00:25.154706 IP 192.168.1.2 > 10.0.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 1, seq 17, length 40 01:00:25.154706 IP 192.168.1.2 > 10.0.0.2: ICMP echo

On 2/16/2016 9:04 AM, Eric Yau wrote: > Hi Lars, > > Once I modify the firewall FORWARD rule to ACCEPT. I can ping and access my > company PC at home. All traffic can pass through that. But I think it is not > a good practice to change the FORWARD rule to ACCEPT. Any idea to check and > just allow the tinc VPN traffic only? Instead of allow everything pass > through the

On 2/17/2016 9:52 AM, Eric Yau wrote: > Dear Lance, > > It is not work. Any idea? > > Regards, > Eric What is the name of the tun/tap interface created on the device. Did you modify the firewall rules to match that? I use tinc on tomato firmware which may differ a bit from OpenWRT. Cheers, Lance

> There is no need for emitting the full symtab. I checked the overhead with a huge internal C++ source. The overhead of symtab + str table compared with byte code with debug is about 3%. It's still sizable and could be noticeable if thinLTO can deliver compile times that closer to what resembles builds without LTO as your results suggest. > More importantly, it is also possible to use

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at