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

Hi all, llvm-readelf is an alias for llvm-readobj which aims for GNU compatibility and is likely the tool that most people migrating to the LLVM binutils will adopt instead of llvm-readobj. Because it is just an alias, it has inherited the functionality provided by llvm-readobj, including for non-ELF targets, with Mach-O and COFF-specific switches available in its interface. People migrating from

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 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 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

> 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

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 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 files, and most of it's command > line flags are ELF / DWARF specific that don't make any sense on COFF > files. So a useful set of

Currently llvm-objcopy only supports ELF files, and most of it's command line flags are ELF / DWARF specific that don't make any sense on COFF files. So a useful set of options for COFF would be largely disjoint, with maybe 1-2 overlapping options. What would be the best way to add this in llvm-objcopy? I can think of 3 options: 1) Re-write the existing CLI of llvm-objcopy to use

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

> 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

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

Hey everyone, Sorry to jump in on this so late. My two cents is that it should remain GNU objoppy compatible most likely. It was always vaguely a desire to have command line compatibility but it has turned out over time that this is actually a crucial feature and should be one of the top priorities. You can't just go into a giant build system and swap out all the uses of GNU objcopy with

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

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

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, 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

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

> > 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 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, >>