similar to: What's the status of Mach-O TAPI?

Adding Juergen to the thread. On Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 12:20 PM Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Ping. > > > > Would anyone be opposed to me trying to revive the in-tree Mach-O TAPI > code? > > > > Thanks, > > Shoaib > > > > *From: *Shoaib Meenai <smeenai at fb.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at

Hi @ll, Over the past years I have been looking into how to reduce the size of the SDK that ships with Xcode and how to improve build times for the overall OS inside Apple. The result is a tool called TAPI, which is used at Apple for all things related to text-based dynamic library files (.tbd). What are text-based dynamic library files? Text-based dynamic library files (TBDs) are a textual

Hi Juergen, At a minimum I think adding the support to libobject, etc so the various llvm tools can read or even write files from/for OSX should be fairly non-controversial so how about go ahead and do that first (I'll happily review if you'd like) and then we can go from there to do anything else with TAPI and llvm? Sound good? -eric On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:01 PM Juergen Ributzka via

Great to hear, thanks! On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 1:56 PM Jake Ehrlich <jakehehrlich at google.com> wrote: > A member of my team +Armando Montanez <amontanez at google.com> is going to > drop a proposal for the ELF part of this soon (like sometime next week) and > will be working on the implementation. I'll be one of the reviewers for > anything that comes out of that so

Hello all, LLVM-TAPI seeks to decouple the necessary link-time information for a dynamic shared object from the implementation of the runtime object. This process will be referred to as dynamic shared object (DSO) stubbing throughout this proposal. A number of projects have implemented their own versions of shared object stubbing for a variety of reasons related to improving the overall linking

Right. Usually you wouldn't want to write a .tbe from scratch, but for the sake of linking against a DSO you might only have access to a .tbe stub that was produced from the DSO. This specific functionality becomes critical when DSOs only used for linking are replaced entirely by .tbe stubs because at a SDK level the complete DSO isn't needed. This is what Apple has done to significantly

Since the goal is to start llvm-tapi more or less from scratch, I feel the best approach initially is to focus on the structure as a key point of feedback in initial reviews. Once the foundations are set, integrating Mach-O TAPI in parallel with the ELF implementation should be relatively straightforward. The features outside of stubbing aren't as appealing for ELF, so I probably won't be

Absolutely. The goal of the tool is to produce both textual and binary DSO stubs. This means you could take a DSO, produce a textual stub, modify it however you wish, and then produce a linkable binary stub from that modified .tbe. That, or you could bypass the textual portion altogether and just produce binary stubs from DSOs. While the textual format is useful, the goal is to make the tool

Oof, I didn't think about Clang not being in the same place. Perhaps we could put this in clang-tools-extra to solve that? As for the unification of the code bases. I was assuming we didn't want to just throw a ton of code over the wall anyway so the merge was going to need to be reviewed chunk by chunk anyhow. Support for the two formats should be possible to add in parallel (although, I

Was there any progress in the upstreaming effort? I'd be interested in having lld be able to link against tbd files, and I think it'd be cool if libtool -static could write tbd files (similar to thin archives on linux) since that should make archiving much faster. Juergen, maybe uploading your initial patch to phabricator instead of attaching might get more traction? On Wed, Apr 25, 2018

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:12 PM Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 2:42 PM Armando Montanez via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Since the goal is to start llvm-tapi more or less from scratch, I feel >> the best approach initially is to focus on the structure as a key >> point of

Hi Paul, My experience has shown the same when it comes to header files and I am not claiming this is going to work out of the box for all library projects. It usually requires some cleanup first and that is why the tool comes with a verification mode to make sure the headers are the truth. Also keep in mind that you don't have to parse all the headers, but only the small set that get

That sounds great to me, thanks Jake. I'm not Jurgen either, of course, but I'm happy to assist you if he is unavailable. I'm not also not qualified to audit the license, but do note Apple formally also released some code at https://opensource.apple.com/tarballs/tapi/. If there's anything else I can do to help, let me know. Cheers, John On 04/10/2018 06:13 PM, Jake Ehrlich

Hi, This is a bit off-topic, but still related to telephony. Is there a barebones TAPI driver that exists that would allow me to call up a command line with, as parameter, the number to dial. For exemple, Outlook integrates with TAPI, so that TAPI driver would allow me to call my own app with the phone number as argument. ex when clicking on 555-555-5555: the TAPI driver would call

Hi All !!! Somebody can inform me where to get more information about the TAPI (M$) interface of the Asterisk ? Thanks in advance. --- Isamp

Hi, To make a long story short, I can't install any TAPI driver on my XP platform. A. Within Config Panel|Modems and Telephony options|Advanced parameters, I've got a list of 7 TAPI drivers. Among them is Omniis TAPI driver for Asterisk. B. I can properly configure this driver (line, context, ...). C. When I open Outlook 2002 Contacts panel, I can select "Call this contact"

I just installed tapi and some app called identapop pro. I havent tested incoming calls yet but so far, I cant get calls out using outlooks. I configured TAPI for asterisk inside outlooks and I set TAPI to these configs: TAPI connects using the manager to asterisk without problems. As channels I configure this: User channel: SIP/myphone and the phone actually rings when I tell outlook to dial

I would like to hear stories from people using TAPI, CTI or CallerID software with Asterisk. What are you guys using, setup examples, etc. Has anybody sucessfully integrated SugarCRM with Asterisk and how did you do it. Are you running callerid software? Did you stumble into problems like using tapi and callerid software returned both the callerid and calledid? Hope you can help me out with

Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Michael L Campbell.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 242 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-users/attachments/20010426/173eb2fb/MichaelLCampbell.vcf

Everything appears to install properly under wine when I'm setting up Millennium, but when I try to launch it, I get the following error: "The procedure entry point phoneInitializeExA could not be located in the dynamic link library tapi32.dll" I know tapi support in wine is woefully underdeveloped, but does anyone know if there's some kind of work-around for this kind of