similar to: Seeking help on LLD and extending ELF

Folks, I'd like propose a new error message format for LLD so that error message for undefined or duplicated symbols are more informative and easy to read. Below are examples of the current error messages (note that characters in red are actually red on terminal): *Undefined symbols* /ssd/clang/bin/ld.lld: error: /ssd/llvm-project/lld/ELF/Writer.cpp:207: undefined symbol

On 3/29/17 12:53 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev wrote: > Put it all together, the following error messages should work for > everybody. I'll create a patch to make this change and send it for > review. Thank you guys for the inputs! > > > Undefined symbol error: > > bin/ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: >

I am late on the thread, but I just want to say that the new format looks awesome! Thanks, Rafael On 29 March 2017 at 15:18, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > My bad. I intended this. > > Undefined symbol error: > > bin/ld.lld: error: undefined symbol: > lld::elf::EhFrameSection<llvm::object::ELFType<(llvm::support::endianness)0, >

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > I lile the idea of having it more structured and I think your suggested > format is the right direction. > > I think one principle should be that we assume that file names and symbol > names are "really long" (possibly wrapped by the terminal etc.). > Right. That's what we should

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 03/24/2017 11:42 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > On Mar 24, 2017 5:22 PM, "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > I figured you might consider moving the basenames of the filename earlier > in the diagnostic, something like: >

On Mar 24, 2017 5:22 PM, "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com> wrote: I figured you might consider moving the basenames of the filename earlier in the diagnostic, something like: bin/ld.lld: *error:* duplicate symbol: lld::elf::MipsGotSection::addEntry(lld::elf::SymbolBody&, long, lld::elf::RelExpr) *>>> defined at* Writer.cpp:38 in

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

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

I'm looking at fixing some layering violations in LLVM & came across a few in the CodeView handling, specifically: lib/MC/MCCodeView includes several llvm/DebugInfo/CodeView headers I guess MC could be made dependent on DebugInfoCodeView? But probably these things should be sunk into BinaryFormat as is the case for DWARF features used by MC? include/llvm/Object/COFF.h includes

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:55 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:31 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm looking at fixing some layering violations in LLVM & came across a >> few in the CodeView handling, specifically: >> >> lib/MC/MCCodeView includes several llvm/DebugInfo/CodeView headers

It seems a little strange conceptually that object depends on BitcodeReader. Is it possible to break that dependency? On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:11 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:52 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:55 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >>

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Carlo Kok <ck at remobjects.com> writes: > > > On 2017-02-21 20:33, Rafael Avila de Espindola wrote: > >>> Input files: > >>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/8yn3dggx05atn47/binLinux.zip?dl=0 > >> > >> If you pass --reproduce

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:52 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:55 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:31 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm looking at fixing some layering violations in LLVM & came across a >>> few in the

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:31 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm looking at fixing some layering violations in LLVM & came across a few > in the CodeView handling, specifically: > > lib/MC/MCCodeView includes several llvm/DebugInfo/CodeView headers > I guess MC could be made dependent on DebugInfoCodeView? But probably > these things should be

Someone internally's been dabbling with turning on some of Google's build system's stricter header checking modes - and they caught these (you can check the internal code review 184305506 for the original where I'm pulling things out from). & yeah, fair question about the modules builds - I don't fully understand what they catch and don't catch. I suspect it's a

No, Object is supposed to be an abstraction over real object files and LLVM bitcode object files. Maybe we can break the CodeView -> Object dependency. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > It seems a little strange conceptually that object depends on > BitcodeReader. Is it possible to break that dependency? > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at

Yes, some of the headers and stuff that are just raw structure definitions and enums could probably be sunk into BinaryFormat.. How'd you find this? Curious why it hasn't been breaking in modules builds for a long time. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:31 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm looking at fixing some layering violations in LLVM & came across a

Intuitively I'd think MC and DebugInfo should be independent. MC is a producer, DebugInfo is a consumer. What's common is the definition of the structures they operate on, which doesn't properly belong to either one. --paulr From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of David Blaikie via llvm-dev Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 11:52 AM To: Zachary Turner

DebugInfoCodeView is nto strictly a consumer, it is also a producer. On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 1:29 PM <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > Intuitively I'd think MC and DebugInfo should be independent. MC is a > producer, DebugInfo is a consumer. What's common is the definition of the > structures they operate on, which doesn't properly belong to either one. > >

I think we have to be careful here. We might want flexibility to say "I want to use a specific class" without having to specify the exact DW_FORM. Sometimes, we might even end up in an ambiguous situation and not get the result we want. For example, in DWARFv4, the DW_AT_high_pc attribute has either a Constant or an Address class, which use completely different forms, but if we have just