similar to: [LLVMdev] [lld] lld build needs to have flags that specify what flavor/targets to build ?

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 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 >

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 variant flavors in CommonOptions.td. The options that are shared between Darwin/GnuLD are :- a) -o b) -L c)

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 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 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 >>

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

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, 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 10/9/2013 3:09 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Oct 9, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> We have a whole bunch of readers(we would have some more too), and was thinking if we should have a vector of Readers, and have a function isMyFormat in each of them. >> >> Any reader that knows to handle, goes ahead and parses the file.

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

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 Nick, The problem is when the -emit-yaml option is used, the writer is set to the YAML writer. The YAML writer doesnot have anything to add here. The problem can be solved by having the YAML writer append a list of undefined atoms specified by the -u option, but the problem I have is each flavor has extra command line options for which it wants to create a DefinedAtom/UndefinedAtom. The

Hi Nick, >> The YAML writer does not have anything to add here. >> >> The problem can be solved by having the YAML writer append a list of undefined atoms specified by the -u option, but the problem I have is each flavor has extra command line options >> for which it wants to create a DefinedAtom/UndefinedAtom. The flavor also may want to add extra linker internal files in

Hi, Attached is the pdf of the operation to make things easier to read. Thanks Shankar Easwaran On 9/20/2013 7:04 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > My email client spoilt the whole email, will create a pdf and send it. > > On 9/20/2013 7:00 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: >> Hi Nick, >> >> On 9/20/2013 5:59 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: >>> On Sep 20, 2013, at 3:42 PM,

On 10/9/2013 4:19 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > On 10/9/2013 3:09 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: >> On Oct 9, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Shankar Easwaran >> <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: >>> We have a whole bunch of readers(we would have some more too), and >>> was thinking if we should have a vector of Readers, and have a >>> function isMyFormat in 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

Hi Nick, On 9/4/2013 4:04 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > I do think we have too many classes. Agree. > I thought InputGraph was going to replace InputFiles. Interesting idea. > It seems link LinkerInput could be merged into FileNode. Agree. > > Originally InputFiles was the abstract interface that he Resolver used to see all the inputs. If InputGraph supported the methods

Hi, Right now, linker added symbols specified by the -u option do not endup in the output YAML file. This is because the target specific Writers dont get called, which creates the undefined atoms. I am in the process of adding more options and I would like the atoms created internally by the options available in the output YAML file. The options that I am trying to consider for the linker

Hi Nick, Read this along with this example extract: ld -flavor gnu main.o thread.o --start-group libc.a libpthread.a --end-group function.o main.o has atoms ------------------------ main (defined) printf(undefined) fn(undefined) thread.o has atoms ----------------------------- pthread_create (undefined) libc.a(printf.o) has atoms ------------------------------------ printf(defined)