similar to: RFC: llvm-readelf Mach-O & COFF options

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

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 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

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

> 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

Many llvm utilities use cl::ParseCommandLineOptions() (include/Support/CommandLine.h) to parse command line options. The cl library accepts both -long-option and --long-option forms, with the single dash form (-long-option) being more popular. We also have many binary utilities (llvm-objcopy llvm-objdump llvm-readobj llvm-size ...) whose names reflect what they imitate. For compatibility with GNU

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,

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

James, Thanks for the detailed response. Please see my thoughts inline. On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:33 AM James Henderson < jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Rahman, > > Traditionally, the ability to read sections is a feature added to > llvm-readobj/llvm-readelf. For some sections, it delegates to methods in > places like the Object library and BinaryFormat, but

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

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

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 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:

Hi, Now in case of relocatable object generation LLD merges and copies REL/RELA sections as is and does not touch any addends. But it is incorrect. If we have a relocation which targets a section, we have to adjust the relocation's addend to take in account that the section might be merged with other ones. Here is the reproduction script: % cat t1.s .data .long 0 .text bar: movl $1,

Hi all, I was giving some thought as to possible project ideas I could propose for this year’s Google Summer of Code, with regards to the LLVM Binutils. One idea that I had was something discussed at last year’s Euro LLVM developer meeting, namely machine-readable output from the LLVM Binutils. Before I actually start advertising this as an open project, I wanted to ask a few questions:

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

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

> > 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

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

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/>