similar to: Invoking lld for PE/COFF (Windows) linking

On 3/30/2017 9:03 PM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Edward Diener via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > Actually just doing: > > clang++ -c t.cpp -o t.o --target=x86_64-windows-msvc -fmsc-version=1900 > clang++ t.o -o t.exe --target=x86_64-windows-msvc

On 3/30/2017 7:59 PM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Edward Diener via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > Are you saying that once lld is built with mingw-64/gcc on Windows > it is impossible to tell it to handle PE/COFF files when invoking it > from clang++ using the

On 3/29/2017 1:38 PM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev wrote: > If clang is targeting VC++, then -fuse-ld=lld should be enough to make > it run lld-link.exe, and you won't need to set the flavor or do anything > special to get PE/COFF files. > > This example worked for me: > > $ cat t.cpp > #include <iostream> > int main() { std::cout << "hello

C:\t>type a.c #include <stdio.h> int main() { puts("hello"); return 0; } C:\t>cl /c a.c Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.00.23026 for x64 Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. a.c C:\t>lld Select the appropriate flavor OVERVIEW: LLVM Linker USAGE: lld [options] <inputs> OPTIONS: -core CORE linking -flavor

Ah! I don't know what GUARDSYM does or whether there is any way to turn it off at the compiler end; a Google search doesn't seem to find anything; but it would be great if you could add support for msvc 2015. When I try using clang as the compiler, I get a different error message. In this case it seems to be just not finding the standard libraries? C:\t>clang -c a.c C:\t>lld

What's the current state of affairs regarding lld on Windows - how much of it is supposed to work? The documentation at http://lld.llvm.org/windows_support.html suggests it should pretty much work provided you don't need exceptions or debug info (though that documentation seems to be from last year), but when I tried it on a 'hello world' C program, it gave error messages; is it

Hi, FYI LLD cannot handle ELF sections with non-unique names. An object file with such sections can be generated by the Clang since r234143. I am not sure that Clang works absolutely correct but bfd linker works fine. Right now I do not have a time to investigate this problem. If nobody take, I will try to solve it later. Here is the reproduction script for x86_64 host: $ cat test.cc template

On 2020-02-28, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: >Nice! > >Your plan sounds great, and it'll be awesome to finally have a good MachO >LLD available. > >On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 4:32 PM Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev < >llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> We’re planning to contribute a new implementation of LLD for Mach-O, using

Hi all, According to lld/docs/Driver.rst, Flavor command line option determines the style of lld command-line interface when invoked. However, it looks like this option also determines the set of supported targets we are linking for. For example, lld -flavor gnu cannot link mach-o binaries, and could not link PE binaries either (well, not until rL312926). Is this really intended by the design

Hi, I couldn’t find a lld specific list so I hope this is the correct place for lld questions. I would like to build a llvm/clang/libcxx based toolchain for Windows using the MinGW runtime. Since the MinGW runtime kind of expects to be built by gcc I figured the easiest way forward would be to use lld in ld mode. However, it seems that lld cannot produce windows executables while working in “ld

On 10/7/2014 4:10 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > Shankar, > > Can you give provide a scenario where you want this? I’m not sure what you want here. a) LLVM could be built just for one target(LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD) b) With LTO this case might happen more often, where an user would have compiled LLVM just for one architecture and lld would support other architectures that LLVM would not

Hi all, I've been using -ftime-trace on the compiler and find it very useful for analysing compile times and whole build times. I've made a first attempt at adding this to LLD (ELF) so link times can be traced in the same way: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69043 This works for LTO and ThinLTO, but needs some more work to make sure it scales well across multiple threads. Please let me know

Hi all, We’re planning to contribute a new implementation of LLD for Mach-O, using the same design as the COFF and ELF ports. This design has proven to work very well for those ports, and we’re keen to explore it for Mach-O as well. Our work is based on an initial prototype created by Peter Collingbourne and Rui Ueyama. Our initial commit is up for review at https://reviews.llvm.org/D75382.

Indeed, it's 32bits x86 and there's no .safeseh or anything like it, even readobj -coff-load-config says nothing: File: ConsoleApplication830.exe Format: COFF-i386 Arch: i386 AddressSize: 32bit Now I know what to look for, thanks! On Mon, Aug 20, 2018, at 18:46, Reid Kleckner wrote: > This is 32-bit x86, right? Sounds like the exception handler did not > appear in the /safeseh

Hi Eric, > From my perspective Win32 is the windows ABI and mingw and cygwin are their own ABIs No. They are using Windows Platform ABI for almost everything (e.g. calling API, C runtime, etc.). At least mingw does. The differences are exactly in unspecified area (e.g. passing / returning structs by value). The only difference is C++, where mingw / cygwin follows Itanium ABI and MSVC - its

Hi, I'm getting: Unhandled exception at 0x00C211F0 in ConsoleApplication830.exe: 0xC00001A5: An invalid exception handler routine has been detected (parameters: 0x00000001). With some fairly simple SEH enabled routine: define i32 @__elements_entry_point_main(%._gt2a_RemObjects_d_Elements_d_System_d_Array_t_1s*) #0 personality i8* bitcast (i32 ()* @_elements_exception_handler to i8*) !dbg

Hello. I'm posting this question here, because there seem to be no LLD-specific mailing list. Sorry in advance if this is wrong one. I compile two C source with following command: clang -flto -o %name.bc %name.c LLVM is augmented with my custom pass, which amongst other things create a global with appending linkage: @myvar = appending constant [1 x [1 x i8]*] ... I also have another pass

Hi, It looks like each flavor chooses to save references in its own way. The GNU flavor (ELF) uses a single vector of references and uses referenceStartIndex/referenceEndIndex to point to the references for each DefinedAtom. Darwin(Mach-O) / WinLink (PECOFF) uses a different way of storing references ? Is there a plan to make the WinLink/Darwin(Mach-O) use a single vector of references too

Martell recently added "ld64.lld" as a name for the Darwin driver. As to why there's no driver that provides a unified command line arguments, I can't speak for other people. But no one seems to have been interested in it enough to actually invent and implement a set of unified command line arguments. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:20 PM, N <scandium at me.com> wrote: >

Thanks for the quick reply. I had a feeling that it was due to missing Windows support in clang++ and LLVM. """ This is due to clang not understanding force_inline. These functions are defined in a header included from Windows.h, so it ends up getting a definition everywhere it is included. """ How much work would it take to add support for force_inline? Are there