similar to: [LLVMdev] [lld] Handle _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE symbol

The Hexagon target adds new atom using the addAbsoluteAtom() functions and then assigns a virtual address in the finalizeSymbolValues() routine. The X86_64 target uses addAtom() function to add an object of the GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLEAtom class to do the same thing. What is the reason of this difference? Is the GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLEAtom just a useful wrapper which eliminates the necessity to assign an

Its a DefinedAtom whose value is set by the Target Handlers. On 10/21/2013 3:08 PM, Simon Atanasyan wrote: > Hi, > > What is a recommended way of handling (define, assign value) > _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE symbol? It looks like Hexagon and X86_64 targets > use different API to achieve the same result. > > tia, > > Simon > _______________________________________________

Has anyone worked with or used the LLVM backend or compiler for Haskell ?? David On Monday, October 21, 2013 5:26 PM, "llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu" <llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: Send LLVMdev mailing list submissions to     llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit     http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev or,

I had a similar issue with arm vs thumb in mach-o. Each function’s thumbness is marked in its symbol table entry. But it is even worse, a function could change encoding in the middle (only hand coded assembly could do this). My solution was to add a new Reference Kind for mach-o which is the current instruction encoding. The offsetInAtom() is the offset where the encoding kind changes.

On Nov 11, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > This falls into the usual topic that whether or not we should have a generic map attached to an atom. You used a reference as an alternative for the map in this case but the basic idea is the same. > > Although using a reference would be practical, it still feels a hack to me. It's awkward at least. Why

STO_MIPS16 and STO_MICROMIPS flags denote that the symbol use a different "compressed" instructions encoding. Both these flags can be combined with usual "visibility" flags. It looks like adding new flag into the contentTypes set might solve the problem. Thanks for the idea. I try to implement it. On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at

Hi, I need an advice on implementation of a very specific kind of relocations used by MIPS N64 ABI. As usual the main problem is how to pass target specific data over Native/YAML conversion barrier. In this ABI relocation record r_info field in fact consists of five subfields: * r_sym - symbol index * r_ssym - special symbol * r_type3 - third relocation type * r_type2 - second relocation type

Can we remove Native format support? I'd like to get input from anyone who wants to keep the current Native format in LLD. On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > The only way currently is to create a new reference, unless we can think > of adding some target specific metadata information in the Atom model. > > This has come up

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > I am not sure if you looked at this thread > (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-October/066155.html) > > let me know if you still have questions. > > As a short summary, we dont verify the architecture of files that are being > read. We could very well be passed in a

A bit off topic: ARM Group relocations define a logical set of consequent instructions to be relocated to form one single address. For such relocations a 1 to 1 relation is also met, so no need of special processing in applyRelocation. Concerning native format: it also introduced unneeded code complexity to me when I wanted to set calculated relocation addend back into the Reference object in the

Hi, The round trip passes just tries to load a *complete* object file in YAML/Native format back. The internal state should be the complete object file in native/yaml format. If some state is not recorded and that is really needed in the writer, we should add that to the Atom model. Shankar Easwaran On 2/9/2015 1:29 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: > I want to bring this again because I think

I'm not planning to remove YAML. YAML is important for testing. On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > I am fine with it. I hope you are not planning to remove YAML. > > > On 2/6/2015 4:54 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: > > Can we remove Native format support? I'd like to get input from anyone who > wants to keep the

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > There are two questions. > > > > Firstly, do you think the on-disk format needs to compatible with a C++ > > struct so that we can cast that memory buffer to the struct? That may be > >

There are two questions. Firstly, do you think the on-disk format needs to compatible with a C++ struct so that we can cast that memory buffer to the struct? That may be super-fast but that also comes with many limitations. It's hard to extend, for example. Every time we want to store variable-length objects we need to define string-table-like data structure. And I'm not very sure that

I think no one is opposing the idea of reading and writing YAML. The problem here is that why we need to force all developers to write code to serialize intermediate data in the middle of link, which no one except the round-trip passes needs. On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Shankar Easwaram <shankarke at gmail.com> wrote: > Doing it for every input file is not useful as some of the

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

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

Hi Nick, Thanks for your reply. The usecase here is just trying to construct a valid ELF. The lld linker needs to handle all sorts of code written in assembly as well as 'C'. The usecase is just one example of it. I have also seen similiar code in http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/powerpc/kernel/head_32.S?a=powerpc which has global and local labels. You are right, that the

Hi Nick, Waiting for your feedback on this. Thanks Shankar Easwaran On 11/16/2012 10:03 AM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > Hi Nick, > > Thanks for your reply. > > The usecase here is just trying to construct a valid ELF. The lld > linker needs to handle all sorts of code written in assembly as well > as 'C'. The usecase is just one example of it. > > I have also

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Shankar Easwaran <shankarke at gmail.com> wrote: > Attached patch fixes the issue. Thanks for the quick fix. The patch LGTM if you add a test case. Unfortunately yaml2obj does not support duplicated section names but we can use a binary input file. -- Simon Atanasyan