similar to: [LLVMdev] [lld] Using llvm-mc in lld test suite

+ Nick Rui, Does PECOFF writer need the filename in the writer as well, I am not sure if linker scripts are supported with PECOFF though. If PECOFF also needs it, I think it makes sense to store the filename in the Atom as the native format needs to store that information. The only option for the ELF writer to know this information is to use References if other flavors dont need the

Hi Rui, Not sure if you have seen this problem, but I have been running into this problem when I run the lld tests and the failure occurence is once in 5 times. lld: ../tools/lld/lib/Core/Resolver.cpp:402: void lld::Resolver::deadStripOptimize(): Assertion `symAtom' failed. #0 0x4b05ae llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(_IO_FILE*)

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

On 10/7/2014 4:10 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > Shankar, > > Can you give provide a scenario where you want this? I’m not sure what you want here. a) LLVM could be built just for one target(LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD) b) With LTO this case might happen more often, where an user would have compiled LLVM just for one architecture and lld would support other architectures that LLVM would not

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 12/8/2014 11:09 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:21:49AM -0600, Shankar Easwaran wrote: >>> >>> The DT_INIT/DT_FINI correspond to one initializer function,where as >>> DT_INIT_ARRAY/DT_FINI_ARRAY is used when there is more than one

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > This it totally "armchair quarterbacking," but I am a little frustrated > that we've come to conflate flavors and targets. > > The original intent of flavors was to internally translate each flavor > into a neutral lld-native command line syntax. We now have baked in >

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

Hi, On MIPS st_other field in the ELF symbols table might contain some additional MIPS-specific flags besides visibility ones. These flags should be copied to the output linked file. If YAML => Native conversion is switched off, there is no problem. But in case of the conversion we lose st_other field values. So I need an advice how to keep this information. Is it a good idea to extend YAML

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

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

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 Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > The dynamic loader handles only one entry for DT_INIT. If there is more than > one init option, we could convert this as an .init_array instead ? > > If that doesnot work, we can come up with a .init_array option but I am not > sure about how will you handle priority with init_array's ?

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

Not all input files have to be able to represented in YAML/Native format. There are many unrealistic use cases there. No one wants to write an executable file in Native because there's no operating system that can run that file. So is YAML. So is the combination of .so file and Native/YAML unless we have an operating system whose loader is able to loads a YAML .so file. We might want to write

Hi, Thanks for the explanation. If I understand you properly you suggest to move relocation parsing to the class with the following interface. Right? Who will be user of this class? If it is still only ELFFile class, what benefits will we get from separation of this logic? template <class ELFT> class ELFRelocationReader { public: ELFRelocationReader(.....); // Returns all created

We are modeling target specific functionally using references, Doesn't your idea defeat the purpose of the atom model? Atoms are mostly target neutral and yaml/native format represents just an atom. Having a derived class for atoms will have a impact on the testing method with lld IMO. We could continue to model using references in my opinion and add some meta data information in the atom

Hi Shankar, On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Author: shankare > Date: Tue Feb 12 12:46:53 2013 > New Revision: 174990 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=174990&view=rev [...] > ELFDefinedAtom<ELFT> *createDefinedAtomAndAssignRelocations( > StringRef symbolName, StringRef

Hi, It looks like each flavor chooses to save references in its own way. The GNU flavor (ELF) uses a single vector of references and uses referenceStartIndex/referenceEndIndex to point to the references for each DefinedAtom. Darwin(Mach-O) / WinLink (PECOFF) uses a different way of storing references ? Is there a plan to make the WinLink/Darwin(Mach-O) use a single vector of references too

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

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