similar to: [LLVMdev] [lld][Options] Sharing common options across flavors

On Sep 18, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi Nick, > > There are already a lot of options that are being shared across various flavors. Adding a new option becomes a issue when that option need to available across all flavors. > > As the first step, I am thinking of consolidating the common options shared across all the Unix

On 9/18/2013 4:31 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Sep 18, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > >> Hi Nick, >> >> There are already a lot of options that are being shared across various flavors. Adding a new option becomes a issue when that option need to available across all flavors. >> >> As the first step, I am thinking

Hi, It is needed that lld verifies the input to the linker. For example : a x86 ELF file can be given to lld when the target is x86_64. Similiarly with other flavors. I was thinking to have a varargs function in the LinkingContext that would be overridden by each of the LinkingContexts to verify files after being read. The reader would call the varargs function in the LinkingContext and

On 10/4/2013 11:16 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> It is needed that lld verifies the input to the linker. >> >> For example : a x86 ELF file can be given to lld when the target is >> x86_64. Similiarly with other flavors. >> >> I was thinking

Hi Nick, Bigcheese, When lld is used to link C++ code, it would be required to demangle symbol names by default/user driven option. The Gnu linker has the following options :- --demangle=[style] --no-demangle I found that clang/llvm-symbolizer use __cxx_demangle function. I would think that lld also need to call the same function, and I think the way we want to demangle is to have the

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote: > On 10/4/2013 11:16 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org >> >**wrote: >> >> Hi, >>> >>> It is needed that lld verifies the input to the linker. >>> >>> For example

On 10/7/2013 3:23 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Oct 4, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> It is needed that lld verifies the input to the linker. >> >> For example : a x86 ELF file can be given to lld when the target is x86_64. Similiarly with other flavors. >> >> I was thinking to have a varargs function in the

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote: > Hi, > > It is needed that lld verifies the input to the linker. > > For example : a x86 ELF file can be given to lld when the target is > x86_64. Similiarly with other flavors. > > I was thinking to have a varargs function in the LinkingContext that would > be overridden by each

On Oct 4, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > It is needed that lld verifies the input to the linker. > > For example : a x86 ELF file can be given to lld when the target is x86_64. Similiarly with other flavors. > > I was thinking to have a varargs function in the LinkingContext that would be overridden by each of the LinkingContexts to

On 4/2/2014 12:23 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Apr 1, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > >> Hi Nick, Bigcheese, >> >> When lld is used to link C++ code, it would be required to demangle symbol names by default/user driven option. >> >> The Gnu linker has the following options :- >> >> --demangle=[style] >> --no-demangle >>

Could you elaborate a bit about the issue that you are trying to solve with this suggestion? On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote: > Hi Nick, Bigcheese, > > Resurrecting a old thread. > > Now since we have a Registry that models Readers, do we want to have a > function in the Registry that evaluates whether a file should be

I was thinking about this more, and perhaps a more preferable solution would have some kind of OptionGroup parameter to constructors of cl options. This would of course be optional, with the default being a global one. Then, ParseCommandLineOptions() could instead take as an optional parameter an OptionGroup, and would then only work on cl options in that group. Would this approach be preferable?

Here are a few extra attributes which I have not seen mentioned yet which I think would be useful. Any comments would be appreciated. *Version* The version of the plugin, I think the reasons for this are obvious. <version> <major>0</major> <minor>1</minor> <patch>0</patch> </version> *Addition to features* Just add an attribute to

Hi Nick, On 9/20/2013 5:59 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Sep 20, 2013, at 3:42 PM, Shankar Easwaran > <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> nextFile could pass the current resolver state at the time when its called, the linkingcontext can return the next file to be processed as below :- >> >> nextFile(currentResolverState) :- >> >> a) Returns the next

On 2009-12-21 18:06, David Greene wrote: > On Saturday 19 December 2009 00:16, Chris Lattner wrote: > > >>> Or I think I can just assume (Yikes!) that if the signal handler is >>> invoked it will really be a circular_raw_ostream since the handler >>> should (!) only be set up in debug mode. >>> >>> That scares me a bit, though. >>>

On Mar 4, 2009, at 12:15 AM, Alexei Svitkine wrote: > I was thinking about this more, and perhaps a more preferable solution > would have some kind of OptionGroup parameter to constructors of cl > options. This would of course be optional, with the default being a > global one. Hi Alexei, Sorry for the delay, I've been swamped lately and tend to process email in LIFO order :(

So is for PE32 and PE32+. They cannot be mixed because they are for x86 and x86-64, respectively. I'd think we can simply wait for all files to be parsed and pass them to a LinkingContext to ask whether or not the input file set seems OK. On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote: > On 4/1/2014 11:51 PM, Simon Atanasyan wrote: > >>

On Saturday 19 December 2009 00:16, Chris Lattner wrote: > > Or I think I can just assume (Yikes!) that if the signal handler is > > invoked it will really be a circular_raw_ostream since the handler > > should (!) only be set up in debug mode. > > > > That scares me a bit, though. > > Why don't you just check #ifndef NDEBUG like the code that sets it up?

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

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