similar to: [LLD][ELF] Symbol/Relocation manipulation.

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > > tl;dr: TLSDESC have solved most problems in formerly inefficient TLS > access > > models, so I think we can drop TLS relaxation support from lld. > > > > lld's code to handle

tl;dr: TLSDESC have solved most problems in formerly inefficient TLS access models, so I think we can drop TLS relaxation support from lld. lld's code to handle relocations is a mess; the code consists of a lot of cascading "if"s and needs a lot of prior knowledge to understand what it is doing. Honestly it is head-scratching and needs serious refactoring. I'm trying to simplify

Hi Devs, since risc-v has a register $tp which is thread pointer. is it possible to have __builtin_thread_pointer for RISC-V? I am not sure what could be corresponding instructions? ./kamlesh

Hi, Sam. I think that it's a fair comparison. Keep in mind that the GP is only used to reach global variables of local scope and the GOT, where the address of global variables of global scope reside. This model assumes that the distance between the GP and the global data area, GOT and local scope variables is defined at link time. __ Evandro Menezes ◊ SiFive ◊ Austin, TX > On Mar

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> writes: > > >> So I am strongly against removing either non TLSDESC support of support > >> for the relaxations. > >> > > > > It's still pretty arguable. By default, compilers use General Dynamic > model

Here is the link: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ia32-abi/nq6cvH_VVV4 -- H.J.

If you are interesting to play around X32, you may refer to http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/x32 to bootstrap a local environment on Linux. Yours - Michael -----Original Message----- From: cfe-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Liao, Michael Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 5:09 PM To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:35 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail.com> wrote: >> Here is the link: >> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ia32-abi/nq6cvH_VVV4 > > The document contains this claim (as do many other psABI documents): > > "Bit-fields that are neither

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> writes: > > >> If you are creating an executable and if your executable is not > >> > position-independent, you're using Initial Exec model by default > which is > >> > as fast as variables accessed through

For background on these calls, see <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-September/135087.html>. Reminder: the purpose is to co-ordinate between active contributors. If you have support questions etc then it's best to post to llvm-dev. We have a call every alternate Thursday at 4pm GMT, via <https://meet.google.com/ske-zcog-spp>. We have a shared calendar which may help

For background on these calls, see <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-September/135087.html>. Reminder: the purpose is to co-ordinate between active contributors. If you have support questions etc then it's best to post to llvm-dev. We have a call each Thursday at 4pm GMT, via <https://meet.google.com/ske-zcog-spp>. I've created a shared calendar which may help

Hi, I've tracked down what I believe is a bug in lld's relocation processing for R_X86_64_PC32 REL relocations. I'm producing the object file in a slightly unusual way: I'm using objcopy on a relocatable i386 ELF object file to convert it to x86_64 which transforms a R_386_PC32 into a R_X86_64_PC32. Steps to reproduce: 1. Assemble the attached bug.asm using nasm and note the

Most Linux distributions still compile against the original x86-64 baseline that was based on the AMD K8 (minus the 3DNow! parts, for Intel EM64T compatibility). There has been an attempt to use the existing AT_PLATFORM-based loading mechanism in the glibc dynamic linker to enable a selection of optimized libraries. But the general selection mechanism in glibc is problematic: hwcaps

As many of you will know, handling of struct arguments in LLVM is actually slightly more fiddly than you might expect. For targets where aggregates are always passed on the stack it's easy enough, the Clang ABI code marks these arguments as byval and the call lowering code in LLVM will copy the object to the stack when needed. There are more options for when the target has more complex ABI

Hi Folks, Anyone got chance to review the patch adding X32 psABI support? Yours - Michael -----Original Message----- From: llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Liao, Michael Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 11:18 AM To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re:

Linux GABI [1] introduced new .note.gnu.property section which contains a program property note which describes special handling requirements for linker and run-time loader. LLD does not support .note.gnu.property yet. GABI specifies 2 types of entries: GNU_PROPERTY_STACK_SIZE and GNU_PROPERTY_NO_COPY_ON_PROTECTED: * GNU_PROPERTY_STACK_SIZE: Its pr_data field contains an integer in the format

On 3 June 2016 at 18:47, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Renato, it is not appropriate to call it my and Rafael's pet project. Hi Rui, I apologise, that was wrong in all levels. I know how much other people have contributed, but these people are on the inside already, so their contributions are more easily accepted. We have been trying to contribute for more than a year

I've been adding ELF/AArch64 support to lld based off the existing x86_64 code that is already there in lld. I've been able to compile and link a simple "Hello World"-type program. However, I'm getting what appears to be a misplacement/name change of the _start atom. When I do the link, the _start section gets named __tls_get_addr. The code inside this section appears to be

* Premachandra Mallappa: > [AMD Public Use] > > Hi Floarian, > >> I'm including a proposal for the levels below. I use single letters for them, but I expect that the concrete implementation of this proposal will use >> names like “x86-100”, “x86-101”, like in the glibc patch referenced above. (But we can discuss other approaches.) > > Personally I am not a big

Hi, Some time ago there were some information about aarch64 support for the lld linker project: http://lld.llvm.org/open_projects.html#elf-aarch64 Right now there is no such information. Also there is some presentation described that the simple application can be linked using lld: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2016-03/Presentations/EuroLLVM%202016-%20New%20LLD%20linker%20for%20ELF.pdf What is the