similar to: Reimplementing Darwin's dsymutil as an lld helper

Hi, [ I Cc'd lld people and debug info people. Apologies if I omitted some stakeholder. ] As stated in the subject, I’d like to start working on an in-tree reimplementation of Darwin’s dsymutil utility. This is an initial step on the path to having lld handle the debug information itself. For those who are not familiar with the debug flow on MacOS, dsymutil is a DWARF linker. Darwin’s

> On Nov 7, 2014, at 9:20 AM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Hi Fred, > > Could this tool be extended to read DWARF information in the final image and then pack it differently for other architectures as well ? I guess it could, depending on what you exactly mean by “pack it differently”. It could certainly strip some parts, or merge it with other

> On Nov 7, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Thanks for your reply, Fred. > > It might work better, if its in a form of an API. So that the linker could call an API instead of running a tool ? Yes, the long term goal would be to expose it as an API. The separate tool is just a first step. I can’t give you the exact shape of the API

Hi, [ I think I put the most important contributors to the DebugInfo stuff in Cc:. Is there anyone else that I am missing? ] Just a short notice that I am currently working on making llvm-dwarfdump more developer friendly. There are quite a few features in Darwin’s dwarfdump that we find quite useful and that we would like to contribute to llvm-dwarfdump. I have started by augmenting the

See my earlier response to Adrian. But I'll rehash the point here, which is that basically in the short term, I think it makes the most sense to keep them separate. In the future, if / when we decide to provide a unified interface (e.g libDebugInfo as you suggest), there will be additional machinery required to wrap the two interfaces, so we could move the DIContext class at that time. Does

> On Jan 29, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > > See my earlier response to Adrian. But I'll rehash the point here, which is that basically in the short term, I think it makes the most sense to keep them separate. In the future, if / when we decide to provide a unified interface (e.g libDebugInfo as you suggest), there will be additional

On 03.09.2020 01:36, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:26 PM Alexey <avl.lapshin at gmail.com > <mailto:avl.lapshin at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 02.09.2020 21:44, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 9:56 AM Alexey <avl.lapshin at gmail.com >> <mailto:avl.lapshin at gmail.com>>

On 26.08.2020 10:58, James Henderson wrote: > In principle, this sounds reasonable to me. I don't know enough about > dsymutil's interface to know whether it makes sense to try to make it > multi-format compatible or not. If it doesn't I'm perfectly happy for > a new tool to be added using the DWARFLinker library. > > Some more general thoughts: > 1)

On 01.09.2020 06:27, David Blaikie wrote: > A quick note: The feature as currently proposed sounds like it's an > exact match for 'dwz'? Is there any benefit to this over the existing > dwz project? Is it different in some ways I'm not aware of? (I haven't > actually used dwz, so I might have some mistaken ideas about how it > should work) > > If

On 02.09.2020 21:44, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 9:56 AM Alexey <avl.lapshin at gmail.com > <mailto:avl.lapshin at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 01.09.2020 20:07, David Blaikie wrote: >> Fair enough - thanks for clarifying the differences! (I'd still >> lean a bit towards this being dwz-esque, as you say "an

Hi,   We propose llvm-dwarfutil - a dsymutil-like tool for ELF.   Any thoughts on this?   Thanks in advance, Alexey. ====================================================================== llvm-dwarfutil(Apndx A) - is a tool that is used for processing debug info(DWARF) located in built binary files to improve debug info quality, reduce debug info size and accelerate debug info processing.

On 01.09.2020 20:07, David Blaikie wrote: > Fair enough - thanks for clarifying the differences! (I'd still lean a > bit towards this being dwz-esque, as you say "an extension of classic dwz" I doubt a little about "llvm-dwz" since it might confuse people who would expect exactly the same behavior. But if we think of it as "an extension of classic dwz" and

Hi James, Thank you for the comments. >I think we're not terribly far from that ideal, now, for ELF. Maybe only these three things need to be done? -- >  1. Teach lld how to emit a separated debuginfo output file directly, without requiring an objcopy step. >  2. Integrate DWARFLinker into lld. >  3. Create a new tool which takes the separated debuginfo and DWO/DWP files

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:46 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com <mailto:aprantl at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Just in case it

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > Just in case it interests anyone else, I'm playing around with trying to > broaden the MCStreamer API to allow for emission of bytes without copying > the contents into a local buffer first (either because

> On Jan 29, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > > I've been working on adding pdb reading support to llvm. This started as a tool for dumping info from a pdb (similar to llvm-dwarfdump), which has been checked in and currently has limited support for dumping pdb. > > There's still more to be done on the pdb dumping tool, but at this

On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: >>> >>> 3) How are you planning to support Atom specific flags ? Is there a way already ? >>> (This would be needed to group similiar atoms together) >> It is still an open question how to support platform specific Atom attributes. As much as possible we'd like to expand the Atom model to be a superset

Is there/could you further explain the use-case for adding an index to an existing binary? Certainly not the worst idea/could come in handy sometimes, but you mention benchmarking - is the benefit of not recompiling/relinking that significant to such experiments? If it's not for use in a common workflow, but only in a compiler/debugger development workflow, it doesn't seem so important to

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 11:22 PM Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Alexay, > > Thank you for the detailed explanation. The other question I have is, as > discussed above, about dsymutil. You said that dsymutil is not usable at > link-time. What does that mean? If we only have to emit an output file in > the usual way and then automatically

Hi Nick, Thanks for your reply. How about if the atom flags could be overridden ? The Atom flag could have a MIN/MAX and anything above the MAX or lower than the MIN are platform specific, like how its dealt with section indexes ? > I know ELF file format has some ranges for various values that are specifically reserved for processors or "user" defined functionality. It serves the