similar to: Adding sections in a binary

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 3000 matches similar to: "Adding sections in a binary"

2020 Aug 13
2
Adding sections in a binary
On 2020-08-13, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: >Sounds like the llvm-objcopy source code (llvm/tools/llvm-objcopy) is >probably a good place to start. > >On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:11 AM Joseph via llvm-dev ><llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hey, >> >> LLVM has logic to parse ELF and PE binaries using `llvm::object::createBinary`. I tried to
2019 Nov 27
3
RFC: Loadable segments watermark for lld
The ELF file header isn't always covered by a segment but still affects loading. I think everything else that effects loading/dynamic linking is always covered by a PT_LOAD segment. As evidence this is basically what --strip-sections in llvm-strip and eu-strip do and they produce perfectly runnable binaries. Having a hash of the actual memory map is interesting IMO. Build IDs can't really
2019 Feb 27
14
RFC: Linker feature for automatically partitioning a program into multiple binaries
Hi folks, I'd like to propose adding a feature to ELF lld for automatically partitioning a program into multiple binaries. (This will also involve adding a feature to clang, so I've cc'd cfe-dev as well.) == Problem statement == Embedded devices such as cell phones, especially lower end devices, are typically highly resource constrained. Users of cell phone applications must pay a
2015 Oct 10
3
[PATCH] Extend Multiboot1 with support for ELF64 file format
This patch is just a (shameless) copy from bug #28 [1]. The original patch has been sitting there for a couple of years now, and it was based on Syslinux v 4.05. The patch I am posting here is just a re-base on v.6.03. Whichever inadequate formatting (tabs, trailing spaces...), or any kind of correction that was required for the original patch to be accepted, is probably still required now.
2007 Jun 06
7
[PATCH RFC 0/7] proposed updates to boot protocol and paravirt booting
This series: 1. Updates the boot protocol to version 2.07 2. Clean up the existing build process, to get rid of tools/build and make the linker do more heavy lifting 3. Make the bzImage payload an ELF file. The bootloader can extract this as a naked ELF file by skipping over boot_params.setup_sects worth of 16-bit setup code. 4. Update the boot_params to 2.07, and update the
2007 Jun 06
7
[PATCH RFC 0/7] proposed updates to boot protocol and paravirt booting
This series: 1. Updates the boot protocol to version 2.07 2. Clean up the existing build process, to get rid of tools/build and make the linker do more heavy lifting 3. Make the bzImage payload an ELF file. The bootloader can extract this as a naked ELF file by skipping over boot_params.setup_sects worth of 16-bit setup code. 4. Update the boot_params to 2.07, and update the
2007 Jun 15
11
[PATCH 00/10] paravirt/subarchitecture boot protocol
This series updates the boot protocol to 2.07 and uses it to implement paravirtual booting. This allows the bootloader to tell the kernel what kind of hardware/pseudo-hardware environment it's coming up under, and the kernel can use the appropriate boot sequence code. Specifically: - Update the boot protocol to 2.07, which adds fields to specify the hardware subarchitecture and some
2007 Jun 15
11
[PATCH 00/10] paravirt/subarchitecture boot protocol
This series updates the boot protocol to 2.07 and uses it to implement paravirtual booting. This allows the bootloader to tell the kernel what kind of hardware/pseudo-hardware environment it's coming up under, and the kernel can use the appropriate boot sequence code. Specifically: - Update the boot protocol to 2.07, which adds fields to specify the hardware subarchitecture and some
2007 Jun 15
11
[PATCH 00/10] paravirt/subarchitecture boot protocol
This series updates the boot protocol to 2.07 and uses it to implement paravirtual booting. This allows the bootloader to tell the kernel what kind of hardware/pseudo-hardware environment it's coming up under, and the kernel can use the appropriate boot sequence code. Specifically: - Update the boot protocol to 2.07, which adds fields to specify the hardware subarchitecture and some
2019 Mar 02
2
RFC: Linker feature for automatically partitioning a program into multiple binaries
I covered the example of the operating system API in the original proposal, but yes, you might also be able to use this for kernel modules. The justification isn't as great for them since kernels typically require linker scripts, and I'm not planning to make this compatible with linker scripts. But if you did manage to write a kernel that didn't need a linker script, this seems like it
2008 Feb 13
4
[PATCHv3 1/3] x86: use ELF format in compressed images.
This allows other boot loaders such as the Xen domain builder the opportunity to extract the ELF file. Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org ---
2008 Feb 13
4
[PATCHv3 1/3] x86: use ELF format in compressed images.
This allows other boot loaders such as the Xen domain builder the opportunity to extract the ELF file. Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org ---
2014 Mar 14
4
[LLVMdev] Is lld the linker we need for our project ?
Hi, Thanks a lot for your answer. It seems lld is still the best solution, even if it does not work "right out of the box" for us today. We already have a solution for the "objcopy" part (added the required output format to llvm-objdump). The ScriptLayout class seems to be empty for now (on the master branch at least), but we do not need linker scripts today. All that is
2020 Mar 29
2
LLD bug causing objcopy ELF to binary generation to create large binaries
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
2017 Jan 24
3
Linking Linux kernel with LLD
>>> - D28094 (Implemented support for R_386_PC8/R_386_8 relocations) >> Do you remember where it was used ? > >setup.elf: > ld.lld -m elf_i386 -T arch/x86/boot/setup.ld arch/x86/boot/a20.o arch/x86/boot/bioscall.o arch/x86/boot/cmdline.o arch/x86/boot/copy.o arch/x86/boot/cpu.o >arch/x86/boot/cpuflags.o arch/x86/boot/cpucheck.o arch/x86/boot/early_serial_console.o
2012 Jul 05
10
[PATCH] kexec-tools: Read always one vmcoreinfo file
vmcoreinfo file could exists under /sys/kernel (valid on baremetal only) and/or under /sys/hypervisor (valid when Xen dom0 is running). Read only one of them. It means that only one PT_NOTE will be always created. Remove extra code for second PT_NOTE creation. Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com> --- kexec/crashdump-elf.c | 33 +++++++-------------------------- 1 files
2015 Jun 15
2
[LLVMdev] [lld] How do I prevent .note sections from being eliminated?
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 01:08:50PM +0300, Simon Atanasyan wrote: > Hi, > > If you need to control content of output .note section, take a look at > ARMExidxSection, MipsReginfoSection, MipsOptionsSection classes. If > you need to copy sections from input to output, use SDataSection (from > Hexagon) as a reference point. > Hi Simon, Thanks for the reply. I have a few more
2015 Aug 17
4
Aggregate load/stores
Even if I turn to -O0 [in other words, no optimisation passes at all], it takes the same amount of time. The time is spent in 12.94% lacsap lacsap [.] llvm::SDNode::use_iterator::operator== 7.68% lacsap lacsap [.] llvm::SDNode::use_iterator::operator* 7.53% lacsap lacsap [.] llvm::SelectionDAG::ReplaceAllUsesOfValueWith 7.28% lacsap
2013 Sep 17
2
[LLVMdev] [lld] Handling non SHF_ALLOC sections.
On Sep 16, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi Michael, > On 9/16/2013 7:23 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: >> Debug info linking is currently broken due to how we handle reading and >> laying out non SHF_ALLOC sections. I posted a patch that partially fixes >> this, but it's both the wrong approach and doesn't handle
2013 Sep 17
5
[LLVMdev] [lld] Handling non SHF_ALLOC sections.
Debug info linking is currently broken due to how we handle reading and laying out non SHF_ALLOC sections. I posted a patch that partially fixes this, but it's both the wrong approach and doesn't handle multiple input files with debug info (wrong relocation values). The first issue is representing non SHF_ALLOC atoms in the Atom model. We currently don't have a type for this, and