similar to: LLD benchmark results for all commits

On 2020-11-14, Alexander Yermolovich wrote: >Thanks for doing a diff and asking in other groups. > >So if I understand your concern with using first reloc as it relates to .debug_str. > >In DWARF4 for .debug_str is referenced from .debug_info, .debug_type using DW_FORM_strp. For DWARF32 it's 32bit unsigned, for DWARF64 it's 64bit unsigned. So in relocation section for some

Initial issue is related to R_MIPS_GPREL16/32 relocations. When we calculate such relocations we need to know _gp symbol's value. This value might come from different sources. Usually we setup it using constant offset from the .got section. Also it might be defined by a linker script. And in rare but possible case it comes from .reginfo / .MIPS.options sections. Got example, GNU bfd linker

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:18 AM Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Arseny Kapoulkine via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> In the process of migrating from old lld ELF linker to new (previously >> ELF2) I noticed the interface lost several important features (ordered by >>

In the process of migrating from old lld ELF linker to new (previously ELF2) I noticed the interface lost several important features (ordered by importance for my use case): 1. Detecting errors in the first place. New linker seems to call exit(1) for any error. 2. Reporting messages to non-stderr outputs. Previously all link functions had a raw_ostream argument so it was possible to delay the

This is really unfortunate. I've read the discussion threads for the atom/chunk controversy and I feel like I understand the reasons for rewriting the linker, but this does not seem to have anything to do with whether the linker is usable as a library or not. As it stands, not only does lld have two completely different linkers (I'm treating COFF/ELF2 as one since they are really two

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > Hi, > > As part of PR27551 I want to add a string table to the bitcode format to > allow global value and comdat names to be shared with the proposed symbol > table (and, as side effects, allow comdat

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rui Ueyama" <ruiu at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM Developers" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Rafael Espindola" <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 11:46:05 AM > Subject: Re: lld and thread over-subscription > >

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > On 2017-Apr-04, at 12:12, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >>

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rui Ueyama" <ruiu at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM Developers" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Rafael Espindola" <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 12:55:20 PM > Subject: Re: lld and thread over-subscription > >

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I honestly think that the ulimit of 1024 max threads is too strict for 48 > core machine. Processes are independent each other, so it is not strange > for them to spawn as many threads as the number of cores. What's the reason > you cannot increase the limit? > Yeah, this is

You are right. LLD does not have this problem. Initially I bumped into the MIPS specific bug related to GP relative relocations calculation. I tried to make reproduction script as general as possible and mistakenly make it too general. So now with your help I realized that the problem solely affects MIPS. On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: >

Hi Rui, et al., I was experimenting yesterday with building lld on my POWER7 PPC64/Linux machine, and ran into an unfortunate problem. When running the regressions tests under lit, almost all of the tests fail like this: terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::system_error' what(): Resource temporarily unavailable ... 5 libc.so.6 0x00000080b7847238 abort +

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >> >> Hi,

> There are probably others, but this is the gist of it. Now, you could still > design everything with the simplest imaginable API, that is incredibly > narrow and specialized for a *single* user. But there are still fundamentals > of the style of code that are absolutely necessary to build a library. And > the only way to make sure we get this right, is to have the single user of

> -----Original Message----- > From: Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 1:51 AM > To: Alexander Yermolovich <ayermolo at fb.com> > Cc: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>; Wenlei He <wenlei at fb.com>; llvm- > dev at lists.llvm.org; Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>; James > Henderson

At Sony we offer autolinking as a feature in our ELF toolchain. We would like to see full support for this feature upstream as there is anecdotal evidence that it would find use beyond Sony. In general autolinking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-linking) allows developers to specify inputs to the linker in their source code. LLVM and Clang already have support for autolinking on ELF via

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:18 PM Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:18 AM Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Arseny Kapoulkine via llvm-dev < >>>

The goal of this proposal is to introduce a new type of YAML section for yaml2obj that allows the population of ELF .dynamic entries via a list of tag and value pairs. These entries are interpreted (and potentially validated) before being written to the .dynamic section. The simplest way to satisfy this requirement is for all dynamic entry values to be numeric values. Unfortunately, this

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:29 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:24 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:17 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:05 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: >

As a person who started this thread I should probably comment on the interface. My needs only require a library-like version of a command-line interface. Just to be specific, the interface that would work okay is the old high-level lld interface: bool link(ArrayRef<const char*> args, raw_ostream& diagnostics) This would require round-tripping data through files which is not ideal but