similar to: RFC: Contributing bitcode_strip

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1100 matches similar to: "RFC: Contributing bitcode_strip"

2019 Oct 14
2
contributing llvm-install-name-tool
Hey Michael, I completely agree that setting the rpath properly the first time around is much preferred. But, changes to the binary, particularly during development is much quicker. Prebuilt libraries which are being repackaged is one use case that is missed. In the past, I’ve even used it to repair am incorrectly built library which was missing the library name. There are a few different
2019 Oct 11
2
contributing llvm-install-name-tool
Hey everyone! Recently there has been some progress on LLVM-based tools for manipulating MachO binaries: llvm-objcopy has been gaining a lot of important bits to support MachO (it's relatively close to the point where one can implement the strip-like functionality), llvm-lipo is functional and supports most of cctools' lipo options (https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/llvm-lipo.html). There
2018 Oct 01
5
Extending llvm-objcopy to support Mach-O
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
2019 May 10
2
contributing llvm-lipo
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
2019 May 10
2
contributing llvm-lipo
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.
2019 May 09
2
contributing llvm-lipo
Hey everyone! In October/November 2018 I started the implementation of llvm-objcopy for MachO with the long-term plan to build some popular binary-level tools on top of it. That effort stopped at the stage where some boilerplate code for reading/writing MachO files was reviewed & committed to LLVM/tools/llvm-objcopy. Later I started working on llvm-lipo (a drop-in replacing for the tool
2018 Oct 02
3
Extending llvm-objcopy to support Mach-O
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
2020 Oct 02
2
[EXTERNAL] Re: preferred way to return expected values
Yeah, not sure either. The discussion about minimum compatibility usually comes down to what version is available on long-term OS releases. On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 12:38 PM George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > > Is the code currently broken? > > > I don't know. Perhaps the code is fine, I did not try to compile LLVM > with all that compilers > >
2020 Oct 02
2
[EXTERNAL] Re: preferred way to return expected values
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 1:48 AM George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > Thanks, David! > > > Few minor additions to the topic: > > > > I'm not sure which MSVC version on godbolt would be "MSVC 2017" that > the LLVM docs refer to > > > I've found that the minimal available version of MSVC on > godbolt is "WINE MSVC 2015:
2020 Sep 28
2
preferred way to return expected values
Many thanks for the reply, right, this is what the discussion is about. On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:57 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > To clarify, this is a discussion around whether given some move-only type > X, implicitly convertible to Y and the code "Y func() { X x; return x; }" > is that valid in LLVM? (and, as a corollary, if the type isn't
2020 Oct 01
2
[EXTERNAL] Re: preferred way to return expected values
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:08 AM George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > FWIW, I've performed an experiment with the code below at godbolt. > (used -O2, https://godbolt.org/z/nY95nh) > > ``` > #include <vector> > #include "llvm/Support/Error.h" > > llvm::Expected<std::vector<int>> foo() { > std::vector<int> V; >
2013 Sep 29
2
[LLVMdev] Add Support For .bss Named Section Directive For Darwin Targets
I believe it's a feature missing in MC - https://github.com/opensource-apple/cctools/blob/4da58fd2fc026317ed9e9ef1feabf21ed0bb7a81/cctools-836/as/i386.c line 539 adds support for the .bss directive if certain variables are defined, and mainline gas supports it on all ARM targets: https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/as/ARM-Directives.html . Supporting the directive on all Darwin targets could
2012 Jan 14
3
[LLVMdev] Off Topic: Building ld
Thanks for your response, that's kinda what I've gathered over the years. I was hoping that the Xcode project would have "just worked". I'll keep piece-mealing it together, and hope that it works. I'll try to post a radar. Joe Joe Abbey Director of S/W Development Arxan Technologies, Inc. 1305 Cumberland Ave, Ste 215 West Lafayette, IN 47906 W: 765-889-4756 x2 C:
2017 Sep 08
5
[RFC] llvm-dwarfdump's command line interface
I would like to grow llvm-dwarfdump to become a drop-in replacement for the dwarfdump utility that is currently shipping on Darwin. (You can search the web for "darwin dwarfdump manpage" to see the currently supported feature set.) Doing this means implementing the missing features, such as the ability to print only subsets of DIEs, looking up DIEs by name or address, and the option to
2012 Jan 14
2
[LLVMdev] Off Topic: Building ld
I have a need to build ld from source to understand an assert(0). I got excited when I found that ld64 on the opensource portal contains an xcodeproj http://opensource.apple.com/source/ld64/ld64-127.2/ But... it seems like I'm lacking mach-o/arm/reloc.h, and dyld_priv.h. I'm doing my best to stitch it all together, but if anyone has any pointers to make this less painful, it would be
2020 Sep 26
2
preferred way to return expected values
Hello everyone! It looks like in the LLVM codebase (including subprojects) there are some inconsistencies in how values are returned from functions with the following (or similar) signature: Expected<std::vector<int>> createVector() { std::vector<int> V; ... } It would be interesting to find out your opinion on this. After some investigation I have found
2013 Sep 28
2
[LLVMdev] Add Support For .bss Named Section Directive For Darwin Targets
Hi - I've attached a patch to make the assembly parser recognise the .bss directive on Darwin targets as a switch to the (__DATA,__bss) section. The ELF & COFF assembly parsers already recongnise the .bss directive. I've added a test case for it too. Thanks - Nick -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bss.patch Type:
2013 Sep 30
0
[LLVMdev] Add Support For .bss Named Section Directive For Darwin Targets
LGTM On 29 September 2013 06:08, Nicholas White <n.j.white at gmail.com> wrote: > I believe it's a feature missing in MC - > https://github.com/opensource-apple/cctools/blob/4da58fd2fc026317ed9e9ef1feabf21ed0bb7a81/cctools-836/as/i386.c > line 539 adds support for the .bss directive if certain variables are > defined, and mainline gas supports it on all ARM targets: >
2000 Jan 13
3
/dev/urandom
on solaris7/sparc this device doesn't exists i can use EGD but he very big (perl script!) - in memory it take about 4mb! apache use the same! why ssh1.27 doesn't requre /dev/urandom on solaris? what alternatives exists?
2012 Jan 14
0
[LLVMdev] Off Topic: Building ld
On 14.01.2012, at 17:23, Joe Abbey wrote: > I have a need to build ld from source to understand an assert(0). > > I got excited when I found that ld64 on the opensource portal contains an xcodeproj > > http://opensource.apple.com/source/ld64/ld64-127.2/ > > But... it seems like I'm lacking mach-o/arm/reloc.h, and dyld_priv.h. > > I'm doing my best to stitch