similar to: LLD status update and performance chart

Thank you for this exciting update about LLD. I will start experimenting with using liblld in Zig (http://ziglang.org/) instead of starting a child process to invoke the system linker. Once liblld makes it into the various package managers out there, this will be a big step toward painless cross-platform compilation. It should also reduce one of the compilation speed bottlenecks, since I could

Looks like the image wasn't attached correctly. Here's the chart. On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Now that 2016 is almost over, I wanted to look back and summarize the > progress we've made to LLD this year, as I guess most people who are not > looking closely at LLD don't know very well about the current

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Andrew Kelley <superjoe30 at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for this exciting update about LLD. > > I will start experimenting with using liblld in Zig (http://ziglang.org/) > instead of starting a child process to invoke the system linker. Once > liblld makes it into the various package managers out there, this will be a > big step toward

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Petr Hosek <phosek at chromium.org> wrote: > >> The motivation is not only memory savings but also security: >> can-never-be-written is strictly better than RELRO in all cases. The >> biggest win is when .dynamic is the sole reason

The motivation is not only memory savings but also security: can-never-be-written is strictly better than RELRO in all cases. The biggest win is when .dynamic is the sole reason for having a writable segment at all. The distinction is fairly small for exploitability, but not negligible. LLD already has several command-line options that are not supported by or are different from ld or gold, so

Your understanding is correct. It saves a small number of physical pages. It's strictly better even if it's only a little bit better. On Tue, May 16, 2017, 5:14 PM Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Hi Jake, > > Thank you for sending this to llvm-dev! > > If I understand correctly, your motivation to add an option to make > .dynamic sections read-only is to

Hi, This is a proposal to add an option to lld that forces .dynamic sections to be read-only. The .dynamic section is almost read-only except for the DT_DEBUG entry which requires the dynamic linker to modify a word. MIPS has long since had a solution to this using the DT_MIPS_RLD_MAP entry to give a pointer to another section which is writable. It would be nice to have this functionality on

LLVM already implements its own version of almost all of binutils. The exceptions to this rule are objcopy and strip. This is a proposal to implement an llvm version of objcopy/strip to complete llvm’s binutils. Several projects only use gnu binutils because of objcopy/strip. LLVM itself uses objcopy in fact. Chromium and Fuchsia currently use objcopy as well. If you want to distribute your build

Hello everyone, Source, binaries and docs for LLVM-5.0.0-rc2 are now available at http://prereleases.llvm.org/5.0.0/#rc2 (I'll add more binaries as they become available.) Please try it out, run tests, builds your favourite projects and file bugs about anything that needs to be fixed (including docs!), marking them blockers of http://llvm.org/pr33849. Cheers, Hans

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:29 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:24 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:16 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Would you like to conduct the conversation here, or on the review thread? (I lean

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 1:01 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Petr Hosek via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> This is a followup to the discussion that started in D28791. To provide >> the context, we need a way to provide __dso_handle in Fuchsia. __dso_handle >> symbol is mandated by C++

Hello all, LLVM-TAPI seeks to decouple the necessary link-time information for a dynamic shared object from the implementation of the runtime object. This process will be referred to as dynamic shared object (DSO) stubbing throughout this proposal. A number of projects have implemented their own versions of shared object stubbing for a variety of reasons related to improving the overall linking

On 2020-09-01, Petr Hosek wrote: >I see the GNU ld behavior as a limitation, not as a feature, as Peter Smith >also pointed out in https://reviews.llvm.org/D86762. While it can be argued >that there are certain cases where it can help detect layering >violations as you mentioned in your change, I'm not sure how valuable that >is in practice. Every case I've encountered so

This is a followup to the discussion that started in D28791. To provide the context, we need a way to provide __dso_handle in Fuchsia. __dso_handle symbol is mandated by C++ ABI with a value which is an address in one of the object's segments, and as such this symbol has to be included statically and cannot be a part of a shared library. Different systems provide it differently: 1. On

Right. Usually you wouldn't want to write a .tbe from scratch, but for the sake of linking against a DSO you might only have access to a .tbe stub that was produced from the DSO. This specific functionality becomes critical when DSOs only used for linking are replaced entirely by .tbe stubs because at a SDK level the complete DSO isn't needed. This is what Apple has done to significantly

We're very very close to the final release. Source and binaries for LLVM-3.9.0-rc3 are available at http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.9.0/#rc3 This release candidate is almost the same as rc2, with the following additional commits: r279224 - Minor change to OpenCL release notes r279260 - [lld] Add a note that 3.9 is a major milestone for us r279468, r279474 - Fix gather-root.ll SLP vectorizer

Absolutely. The goal of the tool is to produce both textual and binary DSO stubs. This means you could take a DSO, produce a textual stub, modify it however you wish, and then produce a linkable binary stub from that modified .tbe. That, or you could bypass the textual portion altogether and just produce binary stubs from DSOs. While the textual format is useful, the goal is to make the tool

On 2020-09-03, Peter Collingbourne wrote: >On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 5:35 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng via llvm-dev < >llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 2020-09-01, Petr Hosek wrote: >> >I see the GNU ld behavior as a limitation, not as a feature, as Peter >> Smith >> >also pointed out in https://reviews.llvm.org/D86762. While it can be >> argued

Petr Hosek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > One of the design principles we're trying to follow is to make everything > read-only, unless it has be writable. The only reason for .dynamic to be > writable is DT_DEBUG which is something we never intend to support. FWIW in > Fuchsia all we need is a read-only .dynamic without emitting DT_DEBUG > altogether,

On 2020-09-03, Peter Collingbourne wrote: >On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:00 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: > >> On 2020-09-03, Peter Collingbourne wrote: >> >On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 5:35 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng via llvm-dev < >> >llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > >> >> On 2020-09-01, Petr Hosek wrote: >> >> >I