similar to: Using an MCStreamer Directly to produce an object file?

llvm-dev, Thanks so much in advance for any help, tips, or advice you may be able to offer me. I'm going to try to avoid the big-picture description of the project I'm working on, and only talk about the parts that I have trouble with / currently need to implement. -- I've been starting by taking the source code from the "llvm-mc" tool, and working that down into a

Hi, I have been trying to use LLVM as a disassembler, thus providing a small part of my decompiler that I am working on. It currently decompiles from X86_64 binary.o -> LLVM IR. It works with a small set of test programs so far, so cannot currently handle large binary programs yet. The problem is with the LLVM "getInstruction()" method. It used to have a PC (program counter)

Hello Tim, Rafael, Renato and llvmdev, I’m working to get llvm-objdump handle both arm and thumb disassembly from the same object file similarly to how darwin’s otool(1) works. And I’m looking for implementing direction. I spoke to Jim Grosbach about some ideas and he suggested I send out and email about some of the possibilities. Since none of the ones I could think of are pretty he thought

Hi, I'm embarrassed that I can't figure this out... I have a compiler that outputs my module in either .s assembly format or .obj binary format, either one works just fine. But if I try to output both of them by adding passes, LLVM throws an Assert: void WinCOFFStreamer::EmitLabel(MCSymbol *Symbol) { assert(Symbol->isUndefined() && "Cannot define a symbol

Hi Daniel, attached is a patch that pushes most of the object file specific parsing out of AsmParser and down into MachOAsmParser. This was done as a cleanup for the ELF work. I know that you're not happy with this approach, particularly the fact that as we add more object file formats and assembler dialects, it's going to cause a class explosion. But I was hoping that we could use this

On May 5, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On May 4, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: > ... We basically want one MCStreamer callback to correspond to one statement in the .s file. This makes it easier to handle from the compiler standpoint, but is also very important for the llvm-mc

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On May 4, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: > ... We basically want one MCStreamer callback to correspond to one > statement in the .s file. This makes it easier to handle from the compiler > standpoint, but is also very important for the llvm-mc assembly parser > itself. > > This

> > > The logic to handle this has to go somewhere, putting it in the MCStreamer > *implementation* that needs it is the most logical place. We also aim to > implement an assembler, it doesn't make sense to duplicate this logic in the > compiler and the assembler parser. > > Assembly language has often been *the* intermediate form for between compilers and object

On May 4, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: > This is a brain-dump of my thoughts on the MCStreamer interface after several > days of digging around trying to get a COFF writer working. Great! Something that is worth pointing out is that the MCStreamer API is intended to directly reflect what is happening in .s files. We basically want one MCStreamer callback to correspond to one

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Nathan Jeffords <blunted2night at gmail.com> wrote: > I had a problem with MCStreamer::EmitCommonSymbol > & MCStreamer::EmitLocalCommonSymbol. When I implemented them I assumed this > meant to put those symbols into the .bss segment. This required me to get a > hold of the TLOF from the streamer. I now realize this is wrong after >

This is a brain-dump of my thoughts on the MCStreamer interface after several days of digging around trying to get a COFF writer working. All fragments should be associated with a symbol. For assembler components, a unnammed "virtual" symbol can be used when there is no explicit label defined. Section assignment should be the responsiblity of the object imlementing the MCStreamer

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 5, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: >> >> The logic to handle this has to go somewhere, putting it in the MCStreamer >> *implementation* that needs it is the most logical place.  We also aim to >> implement an assembler, it doesn't make sense to duplicate this

Hi! I'd like to emit code to a custom MCStreamer instead of e.g. MCELFStreamer. Unfortunately LLVMTargetMachine::addCommonCodeGenPasses is private but I would need it, or even better a method simular to addPassesToEmitFile (e.g. addPassesToEmitCustomMC) taking an MCSreamer would be great. What do you think? -Jochen

On 7 May 2010 08:15, Nathan Jeffords <blunted2night at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On May 6, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: >> >> Thanks! Funny, I was just preparing a patch to submit for my changes to >> MCSectionCOFF. My changes look to be fairly

On May 5, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: > > The logic to handle this has to go somewhere, putting it in the MCStreamer *implementation* that needs it is the most logical place. We also aim to implement an assembler, it doesn't make sense to duplicate this logic in the compiler and the assembler parser. > > > Assembly language has often been *the* intermediate

Thanks! Funny, I was just preparing a patch to submit for my changes to MCSectionCOFF. My changes look to be fairly independent of yours, my change was to deal with COMDAT's. I had dealt with the characteristics flags in the object writer, but I like this. If you don't mind I would like to merge my changes into this patch and submit it. I was just pondering how to deal with the

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 6, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: > > Thanks! Funny, I was just preparing a patch to submit for my changes to > MCSectionCOFF. My changes look to be fairly independent of yours, my change > was to deal with COMDAT's. I had dealt with the characteristics flags in the >

On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 13:22 -0700, Nathan Jeffords wrote: > > The important point here is that the COFF MCSection needs to > have the right level of semantic information. In fact, > MCSection is the place that I'd start for COFF bringup. > > OK, I see that now. The current isolation > between TargetLoweringObjectFile ->

Hi, My apologies if this appears to be a very trivial question -- I have tried to solve this on my own and I am stuck. Any assistance that could be provided would be immensely appreciated. What is the absolute bare minimum that I need to do to disassemble an array of, say, ARM machine code bytes? Or an array of Thumb machine code bytes? For example, I might have an array of unsigned chars -- how

Hi Aiden, The easiest thing I can do is to point you to the source of the "llvm-mc" tool, which does exactly what you ask in its "-disassemble" mode. The code is rather small, so it should be easy to work out. tools/llvm-mc Cheers, James -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Aidan Steele Sent: