similar to: Object file tools

One remaining blocking issue for linking FreeBSD with lld is the inability to build the bootloader components. We have a patch[1] in review to address one of the problems by switching to using a linker script instead of GNU ld's -N option. Another issue is that some bootloader components are created by the linker directly as binary objects, using --oformat binary. (Other bootloader components

With the correct list this time. On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > Hi, > in the last month I spent some time implementing the missing MachO > specific features in llvm-readobj, and converting all the remaining > tests that used macho-dump to the new format. > llvm-readobj should have all the functionality that macho-dump had. If

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Sean, > > So as you noticed that linker script tokenization rule is not very trivial > -- it is context sensitive. The current lexer is extremely simple and > almost always works well. Improving "almost always" to "perfect" is not > high priority because we have many more high

Hey everyone, Sorry to jump in on this so late. My two cents is that it should remain GNU objoppy compatible most likely. It was always vaguely a desire to have command line compatibility but it has turned out over time that this is actually a crucial feature and should be one of the top priorities. You can't just go into a giant build system and swap out all the uses of GNU objcopy with

Hey everyone! Objcopy is a powerful tool that allows one to modify object files in various manners, for example, modify symbols / symbol tables or copy / remove particular parts of a binary. It also serves as a basis for the strip tool. Currently, llvm-objcopy only supports ELF files while binutils' objcopy can handle Mach-O files as well. Besides extending the existing tool to support Mach-O

As I've mentioned before[1] I've been regularly attempting to build the FreeBSD/amd64 base system with lld, in order to keep track of progress and identify issues on an ongoing basis. As of last November a 'buildword' (i.e., userland build) ran to completion, with several workarounds applied to the FreeBSD base system. However, the result did not actually work. I'm pleased to

Hi, It's not clear to me what you mean by CLI "subcommands". Would you mind giving a brief example? Up to now, we've been trying to keep llvm-objcopy as close as possible to GNU objcopy, to make transitioning between them easier (I'm thinking in particular things like DWO generation). There are a small number of edge cases/unusual behaviours that we have chosen not to

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:56 AM Eric Christopher via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Zach! > > I've been thinking a bit about this for a while now and I'm still of two > opinions: > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:21 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Currently llvm-objcopy only supports ELF

Hey everyone! In October/November 2018 I started the implementation of llvm-objcopy for MachO with the long-term plan to build some popular binary-level tools on top of it. That effort stopped at the stage where some boilerplate code for reading/writing MachO files was reviewed & committed to LLVM/tools/llvm-objcopy. Later I started working on llvm-lipo (a drop-in replacing for the tool

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. >> >>

Hi Jake, many thanks, yea, I have very similar feelings / thoughts. After some thinking it seems to me that this discussion/problem which I have brought up is, in fact, more relevant to the tools which really need a robust mutable model of an object file (like objcopy, strip, install_name_tool, etc), but the particular case of "lipo" might be simpler, I need to double check that / will

Hi All, I see that llvm-readobj displays information similar to GNU readelf does except DWARF data. I also see llvm-dwarfdump dumps all DWARF data in user readable format. Is there a plan for readobj to incorporate similar options? This will make readobj more feature complete for reading objects similar to readelf. If this is not the plan, will llvm-dwarfdump be a tool that regular user

I filed this bug today: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32376 I understand that the Mach-O linker is not under active development, but there must be some way to work around this bug. Does anyone have a clue? This trivial IR file gives "dyld: lazy symbol binding failed: bad lazy bind info" at runtime when linked with: lld -flavor darwin -demangle -dynamic -arch x86_64

Every case is different, but yes, as I said - I would like to take a closer look at the problem again, it might be the case that we don't need this complexity in this particular case, but want to double check. But yeah, in general I agree with you! On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 6:09 PM Jake Ehrlich <jakehehrlich at google.com> wrote: > I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head.

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 Feb 28, 2020, at 11:25 PM, Fangrui Song via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 2020-02-28, Greg Clayton via llvm-dev wrote: >> I am looking to create a tool that can add Apple or DWARF5 accelerator tables to fully linked executables that contain DWARF. This will help us benchmark how much accelerator tables can improve the debugging experience as

Has it ever been considered to prefix executables like opt, bugpoint, obj2yaml, yaml2obj and macho-dump with llvm-? Especially things like 'opt' are too generic of a name and very likely to clash with existing stuff in $PATH.

Hi, I would like to propose, based on a previous discussion on llvm-dev, the following change. https://reviews.llvm.org/D56337 The main motivation for annotating member functions of ADT clases with LLVM_ALWAYS_INLINE was that of speeding up `check-llvm` at `-O0`. Turns out this significantly degrades the debuggability of fundamental classes in llvm itself, e.g. StringRef or SmallVector. After

Hi all, My name is Seiya Nuta. I'm studying for my master's degree in University of Tsukuba and interested in the project named "Improve LLVM binary utilities". I've skimmed through llvm-objcopy/llvm-objdump, commit logs, and Bugzilla to figure out what should I do. I have some questions about the project: - What should I prioritize? I suppose that improving llvm-objcopy

Which seems like what we'd want dsymutil to do anyhow? -eric On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 3:21 PM Greg Clayton via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On other options would be to make a new "llvm-dwarfld" tool, where most of > the functionality would exist llvm/lib/DwarfLinker and other locations. The > idea would be to do any post processing to DWARF using