similar to: Accept --long-option but not -long-option for llvm binary utilities

> Are you proposing to make this the new style across all LLVM utilities? No. Only drop --long-option for GNU binutils replacements (people sometimes call them LLVM binary utilities): llvm-objcopy (D60439), llvm-ar, llvm-size, llvm-nm, etc. llvm-objdump (not sure what to do with mach-o specific dump options), llvm-readelf (not sure what to do with llvm-readobj) On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 2:13 AM

For binutil compatibility, and in general for any new tools, this sounds reasonable to me. But I'd worry that things like llvm-readobj have existed for a long time and people are used to flags like "-sections", and it may be complicated to change that now. (I guess this RFC is a check to see if this is true for anyone on the mailing list). What happens if you make this change and

It's actually a bit weirder than you might think. The CommandLine parser will happily eat as many dashes as you care to write, e.g., `----sections` is the same as `-sections`. On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:11 AM James Henderson via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > As I think I said elsewhere, I find it weird that LLVM tools accept long > arguments with a single dash,

Hi all, A broad goal of many of the LLVM binary tools, such as llvm-objcopy and llvm-objdump is to provide an alternative to the GNU equivalent, and as such, these tools have been developed to be command-line compatible. One tool where this hasn’t been the case up to now is llvm-readobj (aka llvm-readelf). There was some discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D33872 about the purpose of

Pinging this thread to see if anyone else has opinions or objections -- if not I plan to go ahead with stepping towards compatibility with readelf vs llvm-readelf in https://reviews.llvm.org/D54124 on Monday. On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 9:52 AM Jordan Rupprecht <rupprecht at google.com> wrote: > Hi James, > > I also wanted to work on this discrepancy, but I just sent a patch instead

Hi Eric, On 03/15/2018 04:33 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > >> I'm also interested in the command line replacements for GNU > Binutils : > >> > >> - What tools would you like to replace in priority ? > >> - Does this subject imply to add options/features to some of the > >> tools, or is it only

My personal preference is that llvm-readelf only show the elf related options with -help and show all with -help-hidden. There is support for this in CommandLine.h, but I don't know how tricky it gets when we don't want them to be hidden for llvm-readobj. I haven't looked into this fully. For some reference, I have compiled how the other alias tools are handled. Many of these are

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > Binutils and LLVM > > As part of "owning our own toolchain", various people have expressed an interest and have been working on creating various tools that duplicate the functionality of tools available on other systems. > > As a start, I'd like to summarize the current status, and

> > From: James Henderson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: Oliver Stannard <oliver.stannard at linaro.org> > Cc: LLVM Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Case insensitive assembly directives for > all targets > > +1 to all of what Oliver said. We aim for compatibility with GNU in most > (all?) of

> Here are my suggestions for the minimal set of tags: > > + 1 per LLVM backend > + 1 per top-level directory in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project > > I think if we start here we can create more specialized tags as > GitHub issues gets more traffic and we have more experience using it. The google doc I created contains the slightly cleaned list of current components. It

Binutils and LLVM As part of "owning our own toolchain", various people have expressed an interest and have been working on creating various tools that duplicate the functionality of tools available on other systems. As a start, I'd like to summarize the current status, and ask people for help updating the list. List taken from <http://www.gnu.org/software/binutils/>

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:15 AM James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 00:24, Jon Chesterfield via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> This doesn't sound right. GNU binutils have a large quantity of legacy >> cruft, not least the redundancy between tools like readelf and objdump >> which are

Hi, On 03/20/2018 06:05 AM, Eric Christopher wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:57 AM Paul Semel <semelpaul at gmail.com > <mailto:semelpaul at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > On 03/15/2018 04:33 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> >> >> >> I'm also interested in the command line

Hi Eric, As you are pointed to be the confirmed mentor for the "Command line replacements for GNU Binutils" GSOC 2018 subject, I permit myself to add you to this thread ! If you have a few minutes to answer my questions, that'd really great 🙂 On 03/01/2018 08:43 PM, Paul Semel wrote: > Hey, > > On 02/20/2018 11:51 PM, Paul Semel wrote: >> Hello, >>

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:57 AM Paul Semel <semelpaul at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On 03/15/2018 04:33 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > >> >> I'm also interested in the command line replacements for GNU Binutils : >> >> >> >> - What tools would you like to replace in priority ? >> >> - Does this

Hi, On 03/20/2018 03:06 PM, Paul Semel wrote: > Hi, > > On 03/20/2018 06:05 AM, Eric Christopher wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 1:57 AM Paul Semel <semelpaul at gmail.com >> <mailto:semelpaul at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>     Hi Eric, >> >> >>     On 03/15/2018 04:33 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>>     Hi

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

Hi Paul, > >> I'm also interested in the command line replacements for GNU Binutils : > >> > >> - What tools would you like to replace in priority ? > >> - Does this subject imply to add options/features to some of the > >> tools, or is it only about handling command line ? > > > I just replied with this in another thread:

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

Hi All, Following up on https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-July/143512.html, and https://reviews.llvm.org/D85408, we would like to consider a design which allows external tools to read the structured contents of the .bb_addr_map section with library calls into an LLVM library. At the same time, we need to have tools/obj2yaml tests in place for bb_addr_map. So it sounds like the