similar to: LLD release note

On 13 August 2016 at 11:16, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > There's enough AArch64 to allow lld to self-host and to finish a build > of the base system on FreeBSD. Last we (I and Rafael) checked, it was > mid-june timeframe, but nothing changed since then. FYI when trying to link the FreeBSD/arm64 kernel now I receive tens of thousands of

I cannot reproduce this error, but this could be real. David, is this reproducible every time or is this flaky? On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 5:03 PM Heejin Ahn via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello David, > > I use x86_64 and it works on my machine. I also can't find this error on > LLVM buildbot page. I'd appreciate if you help me reproduce the problem.

On 3 June 2016 at 18:47, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Renato, it is not appropriate to call it my and Rafael's pet project. Hi Rui, I apologise, that was wrong in all levels. I know how much other people have contributed, but these people are on the inside already, so their contributions are more easily accepted. We have been trying to contribute for more than a year

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis at xs4all.nl> wrote: > > Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:39:22 -0700 > > From: Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > > > Hi all, > > > > LLVM 4.0.0 is out, and I can say that LLD/ELF is now ready for production > > use at least for x86-64 (and probably for AArch64 and

What program did you use to test the feature, and what was missing information? I'd like to file that as a bug so that we can fix this later. On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:34 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > FWIW - selfhosting I did find that GDB wasn't able to find the source code > for some functions when using LLD's gdb_index, so I've switched back to

I personally haven't tried gdb_index, and I don't know the quality of the produced index. Most of the code was written by George. One thing I noticed about the feature (and filed as http://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32228) is that our gdb_index feature is much slower than the gold. Apparently there's room for improvement. On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:35 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie

Looks like the image wasn't attached correctly. Here's the chart. On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Now that 2016 is almost over, I wanted to look back and summarize the > progress we've made to LLD this year, as I guess most people who are not > looking closely at LLD don't know very well about the current

I am late on the thread, but I just want to say that the new format looks awesome! Thanks, Rafael On 29 March 2017 at 15:18, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > My bad. I intended this. > > Undefined symbol error: > > bin/ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: > lld::elf::EhFrameSection<llvm::object::ELFType<(llvm::support::endianness)0, >

It's not a big deal, but it always annoyed me a bit when I hit it, so I'll bring it up here. LLD represents an alignment X as log2(X) in some places and just X in other places. It's a bit confusing. Because I always think alignments in my mind in terms of 1, 2, 4, 8, ..., instead of 2^1, 2^2, 2^3, ..., I'd like to propose to always use real values. Any objections? --------------

On 26 May 2015, at 20:13, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > I sent a patch to llvm-commits. You can see the code at http://reviews.llvm.org/D10036. Thanks! Why does the link not actually go where the text of it would imply, and instead bounce via some random (malicious?) third party? Do you have some malware infecting your mail client? David

I sent a patch for review. I'll wait for a while, probably submit that tomorrow. On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > I think I bought up this topic before, but I'd like to propose seriously > > removing the Native file format from LLD this

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 6, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > Looks like most people in this thread support using LLVM style in LLD. I > also had an offline discussion and many people wanted to have one coding > style in all LLVM projects. So I'm convinced that we should do that.

Looks like most people in this thread support using LLVM style in LLD. I also had an offline discussion and many people wanted to have one coding style in all LLVM projects. So I'm convinced that we should do that. I'm going to create a patch to rename all variables if no one objects. On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014

Judging by this path: needed by 'tools/lld/Common/VCSVersion.inc' It looks to me like this is **not** a monorepo layout (if it were, lld would not appear in the tools directory). Therefore the LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS=lld is not even doing anything. I don't know how to build without a monorepo these days, and I also don't know what the most recent guidance setting up a monorepo is,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Rui Ueyama" > <ruiu at google.com> > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:38:57 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Embedding LLD version to executables >

I'd think we shouldn't do anything even for printing out a warning unless doing it is proved to be useful. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:04 AM George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > >I think we should wait until there is someone wanting to use these > features with lld. > > > >Cheers, > >Rafael > > Ok. Should we give an error when

On 3 June 2016 at 17:10, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > Do keep in mind you are comparing a 11 year old project and a 11 month > old one. There is a lot more churn on the 11 month old one. LLD is at least 5 years old. Every time you re-write it doesn't reset history. > Again, I am truly sorry we were unable to come up with a perfect > design the

The direct cause of this issue is that, previously lld converted common symbols to defined symbols before passing input files to LTO, and after r360841 they are passed as common symbols to LTO. Making lld to work as before is easy, as we can convert common symbols to defined symbols as before. Here is a patch to do that, and I confirmed that that restores the original behavior for the reported

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > I agree to move these files to Core. Any objections? None here. - Michael Spencer > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Bas van den Berg > <b.van.den.berg.nl at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The inverted dependency of Core to ReaderWriter via Simple.h was already >> present. >> My

>I think we should wait until there is someone wanting to use these features with lld. > >Cheers, >Rafael Ok. Should we give an error when .note.gnu.property section is in the object?? ?Best regards, George | Developer | Access Softek, Inc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: