similar to: Need help implementing relocations

Tim, Thanks for the explanation. "it tells the linker to insert the address of date when converting this .o file into a final executable." Which utility do you use to convert .o to .elf and insert the address of 'date'? llvm-objcopy? ________________________________ From: Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 3:20 AM To: Josh Sharp Cc:

Hi, I was looking at the ARM ABI docs(http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0044e/IHI0044E_aaelf.pdf) and they mention. "A binary file may use REL or RELA relocations or a mixture of the two (but multiple relocations for the same address must use only one type)." Does LLVM emit rel/rela relocations with ARM ? Any tests ? Thanks Shankar Easwaran -- Qualcomm

Hi Shankar, > Does LLVM emit rel/rela relocations with ARM ? I believe we emit .rel for (32-bit) ARM. Hard-coded in ARMELFObjectWriter.cpp (“HasRelocationAddend”). It seems to be what most toolchains have settled on. AArch64 is .rela always in LLVM, in case it matters. > Any tests ? Well there are tests of what we do, but obviously not of the full scope of functionality permitted by the

> ~/Desktop/Sanjeev/LLVM/llvm-2.7/Release/lib/libLLVMgold.so --eh-frame-hdr > -melf_i386 -dynamic-linker /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /usr/lib/crt1.o Ok, this way you're generating code for x86 > /usr/lib/crti.o > /usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.0/crtbegin.o > -L/usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.0  -L/usr/local/lib -lgcc > --as-needed -lgcc_s --no-as-needed -lc -lgcc

Sorry for not explaining well. After compiling with g++-cross g++-cross -c a.c I do link using this command /gold_binutils/build/gold/ld-new -plugin ~/Desktop/Sanjeev/LLVM/llvm-2.7/Release/lib/libLLVMgold.so --eh-frame-hdr -melf_i386 -dynamic-linker /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /usr/lib/crt1.o /usr/lib/crti.o /usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.2.0/crtbegin.o

Hi, guys I am interesting about how to get the switch case value form the Machine Instruction. I know the switch will be converted to jump-table in the Machine Instruction. And in the phase CodeGen , the case-value of SwitchInst can get esasly. but it seems no case -value in Machine Instruction. The MI as follows: Frame Objects: fi#0: size=1, align=0, at location [SP] fi#1: size=4,

Here's an example using the gcc toolchain for embedded 32 bit RISC-V (my HiFive1 board): #include <stdio.h> int foo(int i){ if (i < 100){ printf("%d\n", i); } return i; } int main(){ foo(10); return 0; } After compiling to a .o with -O2 -march=RV32IC we get (just looking at foo) 00000000 <foo>: 0: 1141 addi sp,sp,-16

Hi list-members can anybody tell me why > pairwise.t.test(val, fac) produces an empty p-table. As shown below: Pairwise comparisons using t tests with pooled SD data: val and fac AS AT Fhh Fm Fmk Fmu GBS Gf HFS Hn jAL Kol R_Fill AT - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fhh - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fm - - - - - - -

On 3 May 2017 at 08:01, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Can you provide a .s file that shows the difference? I managed to reproduce it by compiling 'char *var = "whatever";' in debug mode (so clang -target arm-none-eabi tmp.c -g"). Direct compile leaves no assembler-local strings, but for some reason going via -S does.

Some glitch in the emailer? I have received this message 3 times in a row!? I think that by the time it gets as far as MI-level there is no reversible method of determining the 'case' label at all. The reason I say this, is that I have often seen optimisations that coalesce groups of values into interesting logical tests and jump-tables are completely avoided. For example, a simple

By the way, since this is an optional code relaxation, we can think about it later. The first thing I would do is to add RISC-V support to lld without code shrinking relaxations, which I believe is doable by at most a few hundreds lines of code. On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev < >

i have this code typedef long long L; typedef integer I; void test2(auto L p0, auto L p1, auto L p2, auto L p4, ...) { va_list select; va_start (select, p4); report( va_arg(select,L) ); report( va_arg(select,I) ); report( va_arg(select,L) );

My home e--mail is down, which is where I get my llvm feeds, so please copy any replies to this address as well as the list. The call instruction can define implicit defs. What are the semantics when the call includes a use with a kill of some register and also an implicit def of that register? Is the register to be considered live out at that point? I've found a failing testcase where

Thanks for your help. Is there possible I can get the realily case value form the MI? For the case in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34902. as follows. ############################# * GCC v7.1 generated assembly ############################# ** Options: -Os -marm -march=armv7-a foo: @ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 0 @ frame_needed = 0, uses_anonymous_args = 0 sub

Hi, Does lld support linker relaxation that may shrink code size? As far as I see lld seems to assume that the content of input sections to be fixed other than patching up relocations, but I believe some targets may benefit the extra optimization opportunity with relaxation. Specifically, I'm currently working on adding support for RISC-V in lld, and RISC-V heavily relies on linker relaxation

To reduce memory consumption clobbered registers are handled with RegisterMask machine operands which contain a bitset of all registers clobbered. - Matthias > On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Daniel Sanders <daniel.sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > > I believe I've identified the problem with almabench but I haven't found the root cause in the compiler yet. > > The

Hi all, I got a silly bug when compiling our project with the latest Clang. Here's the outputted assembly: > tst r3, #255 > strbeq r6, [r7] > ldreq r6, [r4, r6, lsl #2] > strne r6, [r7, #4] > ldr r6, [r4, r6, lsl #2] > bx r6 For the code to execute correctly, either the _ldr_ should be a _ldrne_ instruction or the _ldreq_ instruction should be removed. The error seems to

Thanks. This is making a lot more sense now and it's looking like this issue isn't Mips specific. Here's the IR dump before simple register coalescing (note: I've patched the IR printer to print the contents of the regmask): 4480B %vreg260<def> = LDC1 %vreg253, <cp#3>[TF=6]; mem:LD8[ConstantPool] AFGR64:%vreg260 GPR32:%vreg253 4496B %vreg261<def> = FMUL_D32

I created a DomU with a dedicated network connection script path=''/usr/lib/xen/scripts/vif-dedicated'' Having run the virtual machine I now destroy the domain, undefine it, change the script to script path=''/usr/lib/xen/scripts/vif-vnic'' define the domain and try to start it. This fails. If I change the assigned MAC address the newly defined virtual

Hello, while testing trivial functions in my backend i noticed a suboptimal way of assigning regs that had the following pattern, consider the following function: typedef unsigned short t; t foo(t a, t b) { t a4 = b^a^18; return a4; } Argument "a" is passed in R15:R14 and argument "b" is passed in R13:R12, the return value is stored in R15:R14. Producing the