similar to: Races in llvm-objcopy

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

That's something I want to do as well for several reasons. That's an orthogonal issue however. On Tue, Oct 2, 2018, 10:21 AM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > I'd give some consideration to moving the objcopy support itself into a > library inside llvm (possibly lib/Object as that makes the most sense) and > then the tool is just a thin wrapper on top

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 LLVM developers, As PR35281 mentioned: $ llvm-objcopy -O binary llvm-cortex-m7.elf llvm-cortex-m7.bin llvm-objcopy: 'llvm-cortex-m7.elf': The file was not recognized as a valid object file. if (ELFObjectFile<ELF64LE> *o = dyn_cast<ELFObjectFile<ELF64LE>>(&Binary)) https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/tools/llvm-objcopy/llvm-objcopy.cpp#L200

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

Hey everyone! Objcopy is a powerful tool that allows one to modify object files in various manners, for example, modify symbols / symbol tables or copy / remove particular parts of a binary. It also serves as a basis for the strip tool. Currently, llvm-objcopy only supports ELF files while binutils' objcopy can handle Mach-O files as well. Besides extending the existing tool to support Mach-O

Hi Jake, many thanks, yea, I have very similar feelings / thoughts. After some thinking it seems to me that this discussion/problem which I have brought up is, in fact, more relevant to the tools which really need a robust mutable model of an object file (like objcopy, strip, install_name_tool, etc), but the particular case of "lipo" might be simpler, I need to double check that / will

Every case is different, but yes, as I said - I would like to take a closer look at the problem again, it might be the case that we don't need this complexity in this particular case, but want to double check. But yeah, in general I agree with you! On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 6:09 PM Jake Ehrlich <jakehehrlich at google.com> wrote: > I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Fantastic! Thanks for all of the input! I'll be considering all of it going forward. The plan right now is just to worry about ELF executables and nothing else. I'm very sympathetic to the "llvm-objtool" change. If everyone is cool with it I'll change the name in the next CL to "llvm-objtool". To start out I implemented a very basic ELF64LE specific bit of code.

> On May 23, 2019, at 2:05 AM, James Henderson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I discussed this with Seiya off the mailing list yesterday, and this was the suggestion we came up with, on the basis that GNU objcopy has support for the renaming for GDB support, but it might be confusing to people who are new to the system, so we provide a more expected output

LLVM already implements its own version of almost all of binutils. The exceptions to this rule are objcopy and strip. This is a proposal to implement an llvm version of objcopy/strip to complete llvm’s binutils. Several projects only use gnu binutils because of objcopy/strip. LLVM itself uses objcopy in fact. Chromium and Fuchsia currently use objcopy as well. If you want to distribute your build

Hi, I'm going to implement Mach-O support in llvm-objcopy. Before working on this, I'd like to hear your thoughts how llvm-objcopy should handle Mach-O section names. By convention, Mach-O section names are denoted by "<segment name>,<section name>". However, GNU objcopy renames them in the following rule [1]: - If the section name is well-known, rename it to an

Hi, I am still struggling with my optimized/speedup build of llvm-toolchain v3.8.1. Here: Enable LTO, PGO, optimized-TableGen, split-DWARF and build with GNU/gold and LLVMgold-plugin. The objcopy (binutils v2.22) here on Ubuntu/precise AMD64 does not support '--extract-dwo'. My build fails with... /usr/bin/objcopy: unrecognized option '--extract-dwo'. Now, I did a full build 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 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

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Ed Maste via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > One additional use case for you: converting from a binary to an ELF object > file > ``` > objcopy -I binary -O elf64-x86-64 foo.bin foo.o > ``` > This is sometimes used for embedding binary files for use by drivers and > such. > Yea, unfortunately the command-line you

Hi, llvm::sys::path allows the user to query "known directory" paths: temp, cache, home. I was tweaking this area a bit for some time. I would like to propose a small redesign. What we have so far? home_directory() tries to return what it promises. No issues with that. system_temp_directory(true) returns a path to a directory that can be erased on reboot. On Linux it is usually /tmp.

Hi, all. I noticed recently that llvm::sys::fs::createTemporaryFile does not use llvm::sys::path::system_temp_directory, instead relying on its platform-specific helper TempFile. Is there any reason for this disparity? The two implementations are not in sync, either: - TempDir honors TMPDIR, TMP, TEMP, TEMPDIR, and a configuration-settable P_tmpdir on Unix-y systems. system_temp_directory just

objcopy needs "output-target" and "binary-architecture" parameters which makes it necessary to keep a list of known architectures. The bin2s.pl script generates input for the GNU assembler which should produce an object file that is equivalent to that produced by objcopy. I have successfully tested the change on an amd64 Debian/unstable system. --- helper/Makefile.am |

Hi LLVM devs,  I came across an LLD bug in v 10.x where ELF parser / processor is setting .PROGBITS attribute for .heap and .stack sections, which leads to large binaries when we do `llvm-objcopy -o binary` to generate the binary output for armv6m. (e.g. for a 57Kb elf would yield a ~400Mb binary). This in comparison with LLVM 7.x , would produce the correct binary size of 35Kb and the