similar to: [LLVMdev] Best way to do a lto bootstrap on OS X

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

We do it by setting DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH. That overrides the normal @executable_path lookup. On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Jean-Daniel Dupas <devlists at shadowlab.org> wrote: > 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

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

Hi Tobias The problem is that your static archive has a SYMDEF that is empty, so linker thinks the static library provided doesn't contain any symbol. The reason for that is you are using the `ranlib` from Xcode, which is too old to understand the new bitcode object files produced by llvm 10. There are lots of ways to fix that: * The standard way to create static library on macOS is to use

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

Looks like your static library is not even pulled into the link command so the static library is not even in the snapshot. From the link command in the snapshot, the static library is not on the command line from snapshot: /Applications/Xcode-11.3.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/ld -Z -demangle -object_path_lto

I believe what's happening here is that clang translates the -fuse-ld=lld into calling the ld.lld executable, which is actually the ELF LLD linker, not the Mach-O one. On 6.0, the Mach-O linker symlink is called ld64.lld instead (and clang has been changed to call out to that name) to disambiguate the two. For 5.0, I'm not sure how best to force the Mach-O linker (I'm not familiar with

Hi, llvm developers. I can't find a lld-dev mail list, so just mail to here. ld in macOS is legacy, lld a more modern linker. I have test, `-fuse-ld=lld, -Wl,--as-needed `, but its output is: /usr/local/bin/ld.lld: error: unknown argument: -dynamic /usr/local/bin/ld.lld: error: unknown argument: -arch /usr/local/bin/ld.lld: error: unknown argument: -search_paths_first

> On Feb 3, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Jonathan Roelofs <jroelofs.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 2/3/15 12:08 PM, Chris Bieneman wrote: > >> Other issues not tracked by bugs: >> >> * CMake builds for libc++? > Can you elaborate... what do you mean by this? AFAIK this already works. Duncan made a comment on IRC about being libc++, but I’m not aware

> 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

On Feb 3, 2015, at 1:40 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > >> On 2015 Feb 3, at 13:26, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Feb 3, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Jonathan Roelofs <jroelofs.lists at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/3/15 12:08 PM, Chris Bieneman wrote:

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 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 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 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 < > >>

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 Dec 4, 2009, at 2:49 PM, John Criswell wrote: >> If you are building llvm-gcc yourself, try, in this order: >> 1) sudo ln -s ../../Developer/usr/lib/libLTO.dylib /usr/lib/ >> libLTO.dylib >> >> 2) If you still get errors, try installing the libLTO.dylib from >> your LLVM build into /Developer/usr/lib. Make sure that if you're >> on a 64-bit

> 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

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.

I'm seeing something similar. clang is using HOST_LINK_VERSION, obtained from ld64, as the default for -mlinker-version. This causes Darwin.cpp to add the arguments you are seeing, but not handled by lld. Perhaps -fuse-ld should be considered in addition to -mlinker-version when adding these arguments. As a workaround, you can try passing -mlinker-version. Looks like anything < 133