similar to: [LLVMdev] [lld] filename in the atom model.

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, 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, 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

Hi, Is it OK to use llvm-mc in the lld test suite? I do not want to maintain assembler, object and test files for small MIPS target related test. Instead of that I prefer to keep a single test file with assembler code and test suite instructions. Is it acceptable way? -- Simon Atanasyan

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

It looks like there are errors in the buildbot runs with std::future_error when executing lot of tests, probably we can disable it for now to make the buildbot clean ? http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-clang-lld-x86_64-ubuntu-13.04/builds/26755/steps/test/logs/stdio has more information. Shankar Easwaran -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by

It's pretty weird -- I can't reproduce this on my machine. Can you? I can only speculate a cause. But I'll try to disable the feature to see if buildbot will get back to green. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > It looks like there are errors in the buildbot runs with std::future_error > when executing lot of tests,

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, 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

Hi, It looks like the COFF reader creates an Alias atom by adding a kindLayoutAfter reference to the target atom. Now since the kindLayoutAfter passes are moved to machO how does it still work ? Does it work by chance because of ordinals ? I would think moving kindLayoutAfter references and having the LayoutPass would be a better choice. Shankar Easwaran -- Qualcomm Innovation Center,

Ping ? Do you think that we need to have an API in LinkingContext to return the next ordinal available, so that files created by passes can be assigned ordinals ? Thanks Shankar Easwaran On 10/6/2013 11:07 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > In addition I think the LayoutPass std::stable_sort be replaced with > std::sort as total ordering is guaranteed as each File would get an >

Hi, I think it would be great if we could subclass the LayoutPass. All the generic functionality could be in the parent to run the layout-after/in-group/ and currently the layout-before passes(until it gets removed). Flavors can *choose to run the layout passes* that they use and determine the way things get ordered in the layout pass. The compare function in the LayoutPass would call

Thank you for quick responses! As to dead stripping, if dead stripping is the only pass we need bi-directional edges, we might want the dead stripping pass to construct internal data structure by reversing the graph to construct layout-before edges from layout-after edges. This should be less error prone than maintaining two reverse-directional edges throughout all passes. Of course it will make

On 9/13/2013 6:06 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Sep 13, 2013, at 3:35 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> This would work only if an alias is another name for the same symbol(weak symbols). > I don’t know what that means. Can you clarify? Doesnt this imply that the alias atom is a zero sized atom ? >> If what is being aliased is another function

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 Nick, This would work only if an alias is another name for the same symbol(weak symbols). If what is being aliased is another function definition, which is a non zero sized atom, aliasing will not work. I was thinking to model this for ELF for the below functionalities :- a) __wrap For example : --wrap fn What I plan to do here is, create a undefined function fn atom create a defined

I guess I'm talking about atoms. Do we have notion of section in LLD? On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 3/24/2015 7:51 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Mar 24, 2015, at 5:09 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com>

# is a line comment chracter in YAML so it's valid. That's why I wrote a simple magic "comment". On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote: > On 10/10/2013 5:00 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Shankar Easwaran >> <shankare at codeaurora.org>**wrote: >> >> On

Hi, I think we are overloading the Layout references for garbage collection. If you are creating a reference (kindLayoutAfter) from A to B, that may not mean that you cannot garbage collect B for the end user. My thought on Layout references was that it only guarantees that atoms appear in Layout reference order. Why are we overloading this for Garbage collection (aside from saving space/code)

Hi, Can we add deadStrip() to undefinedAtoms as well ? This will enable to choose whether we want to set the property deadStripNormal or deadStripNever on them. Also I think it will be cleaner for atoms to be added to deadStripRoot set using a single API. Thanks Shankar Easwaran -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation