similar to: leaks in lld on the bot

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> The asan bootstrap bot is unhappy with lld. >> Rui, os someone, please take a look. >> >>

This buildbot seems to have been failing for a while (though it's hard for me to identify the root cause in the logs, as I mentioned in another thread, so it's hard to say if it's the same failure, or if the failure is consistent, etc) - anyone watching it/caring aobut it? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> Date: Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at

E.g. Is it intended to be allowed to call lld::elf::link in 2 different threads at the same time? Follows is an example Valgrind error I ran into when doing the above. I'll try putting a global resource lock on invoking LLD and see if it solves the problem. ==5467== Invalid write of size 8 ==5467== at 0x525509: llvm::DenseMapBase<llvm::DenseMap<llvm::CachedHashStringRef, int,

Hi Andrew, LLD relies on various bits of global state which are manipulated during the link, so I wouldn't expect it to be thread safe at that level, although it does attempt to reset that global state at the start of each call to link(), so it should be callable sequentially. Regards, James On 25 July 2018 at 02:37, Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

Folks, I'd like propose a new error message format for LLD so that error message for undefined or duplicated symbols are more informative and easy to read. Below are examples of the current error messages (note that characters in red are actually red on terminal): *Undefined symbols* /ssd/clang/bin/ld.lld: error: /ssd/llvm-project/lld/ELF/Writer.cpp:207: undefined symbol

On 3/29/17 12:53 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev wrote: > Put it all together, the following error messages should work for > everybody. I'll create a patch to make this change and send it for > review. Thank you guys for the inputs! > > > Undefined symbol error: > > bin/ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: >

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > I lile the idea of having it more structured and I think your suggested > format is the right direction. > > I think one principle should be that we assume that file names and symbol > names are "really long" (possibly wrapped by the terminal etc.). > Right. That's what we should

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, >

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 03/24/2017 11:42 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > On Mar 24, 2017 5:22 PM, "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > I figured you might consider moving the basenames of the filename earlier > in the diagnostic, something like: >

On Mar 24, 2017 5:22 PM, "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com> wrote: I figured you might consider moving the basenames of the filename earlier in the diagnostic, something like: bin/ld.lld: *error:* duplicate symbol: lld::elf::MipsGotSection::addEntry(lld::elf::SymbolBody&, long, lld::elf::RelExpr) *>>> defined at* Writer.cpp:38 in

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

I'm seeing a bunch of failures on AArch64 after updating this morning. These are NOT failing on x86-64. These all seem to be caused by segfaults (example backtrace below). Is anyone else seeing this? -David LLVM :: DebugInfo/symbolize-no-debug-str.test LLVM :: tools/gold/X86/comdat.ll LLVM :: tools/gold/X86/visibility.ll LLVM ::

Hello, We've recently started using ifuncs in the x86(_64) FreeBSD kernel. Currently lld will emit a PLT entry for each ifunc, so ifunc calls are more expensive that those of regular functions. In our kernel, this overhead isn't really necessary: if lld instead emits PC-relative relocations for each ifunc call site, where each relocation references a symbol of type GNU_IFUNC, then during

Thanks for the info Teresa, Regards M Suresh From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 7:15 PM To: Mani, Suresh <Suresh.Mani at amd.com> Cc: Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Expected behavior of lld during LTO for global symbols (Attr Internal/Common) [CAUTION: External

I believe that LLD is not supposed to call exit on success when you call lld::coff::link. >From downstream fork of LLD: https://github.com/zig-lang/zig/commit/41da9fdb69065082f57c604b12eb02ca166cb18d diff --git a/lld/COFF/Driver.cpp b/lld/COFF/Driver.cpp index 854c3e69098..8b17f039870 100644 --- a/lld/COFF/Driver.cpp +++ b/lld/COFF/Driver.cpp @@ -1030,7 +1030,7 @@ void

I think you want to call freeArena() before returning from lld::coff::link. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I believe this line is the culprit: > > COFF/Driver.cpp:102: > make<std::unique_ptr<MemoryBuffer>>(std::move(MB)); // take ownership > > Patch forthcoming. > > > On Sun, Oct

Correct, I am using libCOFF, libELF, and libMACHO all as a library. Ideally all cases would return and report an error and clean up memory, etc, instead of calling exit. However this is sufficient for my needs for now. It is ok for LLD to crash if I supply an invalid command line argument, I won't do that. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >

I've got a patched LLD 5.0.0 like this: diff --git a/deps/lld/COFF/Driver.cpp b/deps/lld/COFF/Driver.cpp index 854c3e69..8bab1c11 100644 --- a/deps/lld/COFF/Driver.cpp +++ b/deps/lld/COFF/Driver.cpp @@ -1030,7 +1030,7 @@ void LinkerDriver::link(ArrayRef<const char *> ArgsArr) { if (!Args.hasArgNoClaim(OPT_INPUT)) { fixupExports(); createImportLibrary(/*AsLib=*/true); -

If you call lld::coff::link twice, the second time gives this backtrace: msvcp140d.dll!00007ffc35830806() Unknown > zig.exe!std::_Debug_pointer<lld::coff::Chunk * __ptr64 const>(lld::coff::Chunk * const * _Ptr, const wchar_t * _File, unsigned int _Line) Line 926 C++ zig.exe!std::_Debug_range2<lld::coff::Chunk * __ptr64 const * __ptr64>(lld::coff::Chunk * const *

Hi Rafael, On 07/31/2017 04:20 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev wrote: > However, do we need to start with instrumentation? The original paper > uses sampling with good results and current intel cpus can record every > branch in a program. > > I would propose starting with just an lld patch that reads the call > graph from a file. The format would be very similar to