similar to: Possible Memory Savings for tools emitting large amounts of existing data through MC

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > Just in case it interests anyone else, I'm playing around with trying to > broaden the MCStreamer API to allow for emission of bytes without copying > the contents into a local buffer first (either because

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:46 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > Just in case it interests anyone else, I'm playing around with trying to broaden the MCStreamer API to allow for emission of bytes without copying the contents into a local buffer first (either because you already have a buffer, or the bytes are already present in another file, etc) in

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:46 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com <mailto:aprantl at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Just in case it

Hi David, The way I imagined that we might want to extend the MCStreamer API (this was motivated by DIEData) is by allowing clients to move bytes and fixups into the MC layer. This is the sort of API that I was imagining: void MoveAndEmitFragment(SmallVectorImpl<char> &&Data, SmallVectorImpl<MCFixup> &&Fixups); Note that this mirrors the

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:46 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com <mailto:aprantl at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Just in case it

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:10 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com <mailto:aprantl at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Feb 29, 2016, at 3:46 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > Hi David, > > The way I imagined that we might want to extend the MCStreamer API (this > was motivated by DIEData) is by allowing clients to move bytes and fixups > into the MC layer. > > This is the sort of API that I was imagining: > > void

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 03:47:49PM -0800, David Blaikie wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > The way I imagined that we might want to extend the MCStreamer API (this > > was motivated by DIEData) is by allowing clients to move bytes and fixups > > into the MC layer. >

On 01.09.2020 06:27, David Blaikie wrote: > A quick note: The feature as currently proposed sounds like it's an > exact match for 'dwz'? Is there any benefit to this over the existing > dwz project? Is it different in some ways I'm not aware of? (I haven't > actually used dwz, so I might have some mistaken ideas about how it > should work) > > If

On 01.09.2020 20:07, David Blaikie wrote: > Fair enough - thanks for clarifying the differences! (I'd still lean a > bit towards this being dwz-esque, as you say "an extension of classic dwz" I doubt a little about "llvm-dwz" since it might confuse people who would expect exactly the same behavior. But if we think of it as "an extension of classic dwz" and

Hi,   We propose llvm-dwarfutil - a dsymutil-like tool for ELF.   Any thoughts on this?   Thanks in advance, Alexey. ====================================================================== llvm-dwarfutil(Apndx A) - is a tool that is used for processing debug info(DWARF) located in built binary files to improve debug info quality, reduce debug info size and accelerate debug info processing.

On 02.09.2020 21:44, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 9:56 AM Alexey <avl.lapshin at gmail.com > <mailto:avl.lapshin at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 01.09.2020 20:07, David Blaikie wrote: >> Fair enough - thanks for clarifying the differences! (I'd still >> lean a bit towards this being dwz-esque, as you say "an

Hi Alexey, I should've looked at this earlier. I went through the thread again and I've made some comments, mostly from the dsymutil point of view. > Current DWARFEmitter/DWARFStreamer has an implementation for DWARF > generation, which does not support DWARF5(only debug_names table). At the > same time, there already exists code in CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfDebug.h, > which

Hi Eric, please On 31.07.2020 22:02, Eric Christopher wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 4:02 AM Alexey Lapshin via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > > On 28.07.2020 19:28, David Blaikie wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 8:55 AM Alexey Lapshin > <avl.lapshin at gmail.com

On 03.09.2020 01:36, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:26 PM Alexey <avl.lapshin at gmail.com > <mailto:avl.lapshin at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 02.09.2020 21:44, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 9:56 AM Alexey <avl.lapshin at gmail.com >> <mailto:avl.lapshin at gmail.com>>

Much like the recent efforts to provide a port of dsymutil in the LLVM project, I'm looking at providing an implementation of the Fission/Split DWARF DWP tool ( https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebugFissionDWP ) in LLVM. While there's potentially some overlap between the two tools, I'm thinking of keeping them separate at least initially since much of the debug info doesn't need to be

>> >> >> >> This idea goes in another direction than fragmenting dwarf >> >> >> >> using elf sections&tricks. It seems to me that the cost of fragmenting is too high. >> >> >> >> >> >> >I tend to agree - but I'm sort of leaning towards trying to use object >> >> >> >features as much

hello, I am trying to build LLVM with default options. I am getting the following error message after make. [100%] Building C object tools/llvm-c-test/CMakeFiles/llvm-c-test.dir/metadata.c.o [100%] Building C object tools/llvm-c-test/CMakeFiles/llvm-c-test.dir/module.c.o [100%] Building C object tools/llvm-c-test/CMakeFiles/llvm-c-test.dir/object.c.o [100%] Building C object

On 28.07.2020 10:29, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:28 AM Alexey Lapshin > <alapshin at accesssoftek.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> This idea goes in another direction than fragmenting dwarf >>>>>>>>>> using elf sections&tricks. It seems to me that the cost of fragmenting is too high.