similar to: [LLVMdev] [lld] need to figure out if file is an archive member and record more information...

On 12/2/2014 11:19 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: > Do you have to know whether a MemoryBuffer was in a library or not during > parsing that MemoryBuffer? Yes, I need to know that while parsing the buffer too. > > If not, we could just set a library name to a File in > FileArchive::instantiateMember after we call _registry.parseFile. > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Shankar Easwaran

On Oct 19, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > Hi, > > I have started to work on support for Reading archive libraries in lld and thought of using the llvm/lib/ArchiveReader for this. > > The ArchiveReader doesnot fully support GNU archive libraries (thin archives), do you think we should continue using llvm/lib/ArchiveReader ? > > I was chatting with Michael and

Hi, I have started to work on support for Reading archive libraries in lld and thought of using the llvm/lib/ArchiveReader for this. The ArchiveReader doesnot fully support GNU archive libraries (thin archives), do you think we should continue using llvm/lib/ArchiveReader ? I was chatting with Michael and looks like there have been discussions and small sketches done on reading archive

Hi Nick, Here is my understanding, 1) lld-core creates a ReaderOptionsArchive class with the (Reader, CommandLine options flag) 2) lld-core creates an object of type ReaderArchive(ReaderOptions), that users would subclass (off ArchiveLibraryFile) a) GNUArchiveLibrary b) BSDArchiveLibrary b) MachOArchiveLibrary c) COFFArchiveLibrary 3) ReaderArchive has two functions

On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > Hi Nick, > > Here is my understanding, > > 1) lld-core creates a ReaderOptionsArchive class with the (Reader, CommandLine options flag) > 2) lld-core creates an object of type ReaderArchive(ReaderOptions), that users would subclass (off ArchiveLibraryFile) > a) GNUArchiveLibrary > b) BSDArchiveLibrary >

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

I do think we have too many classes. I thought InputGraph was going to replace InputFiles. It seems link LinkerInput could be merged into FileNode. Originally InputFiles was the abstract interface that he Resolver used to see all the inputs. If InputGraph supported the methods forEachInitalAtom() and searchLibraries() then we could get rid of InputFiles and have the Resolver uses InputGraph

Hi, With the inputGraph now, lld models command line options, input files as nodes in the InputGraph called InputElements. In the current approach, each InputElement is converted to a LinkerInput, which works if all lld deals with individual files. Dealing with ControlNodes (Groups), have a problem with it, on how to model that as a LinkerInput. Joerg/Me were chatting on the IRC about this

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 Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 02:04:14PM -0700, Nick Kledzik wrote: > I do think we have too many classes. I thought InputGraph was going > to replace InputFiles. It seems link LinkerInput could be merged into > FileNode. I both agree and disagree. Logically we have two different views, the command line and the resulting input tree on the side and the groups of object files as seen by the

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 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, It looks like the the ELFPassFile doesnot get an ordinal value assigned, as its added in a pass. Is there a way to assign a file ordinal for the files added by Passes ? Till that time, I am going to XFAIL the ifunc test. More tests should fail, and am not sure why they are not failing. Thanks Shankar Easwaran -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted

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

Shankar, The LinkingContext has a addImplictFiles() method that is supposed to call the Writer and give it a chance to add any implicit files. Is the problem that the -u atoms are not attached to that implicit file? Or that the implicit file is not getting added? Or that this got lost in the transition from InputFiles to InputGraph? -Nick On Aug 28, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Shankar Easwaran

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, lld doesnot have a Diagnostics interface, It uses llvm::errs() to display errors after linking has been done. I think the Diagnostics interface follow similiar interface patterns as followed by clang (using Diagnostic td files). What do you think ? Thanks Shankar Easwaran -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation

On 1/22/2013 1:49 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> What can I do? > Just don't build compiler-rt. And yes, instructions should be modified > to outline that compiler-rt is optional step. > > -- > With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov > Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University > _______________________________________________ > LLVM

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

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 ordinal and each atom would get an ordinal too, after the below problem is fixed. Thanks Shankar Easwaran On 10/6/2013 10:54 PM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > Hi, > > It looks like the the ELFPassFile doesnot get an ordinal value > assigned, as its