similar to: update for x86_64-put-note-sections-into-a-pt_note-segment-in-vmlinux.patch

This patch updates x86_64 linker script to pack any .note.* sections into a PT_NOTE segment in the output file. To do this, we tell ld that we need a PT_NOTE segment. This requires us to start explicitly mapping sections to segments, so we also need to explicitly create PT_LOAD segments for text and data, and map the sections to them appropriately. Fortunately, each section will default to its

I am linking a program to be loaded in an ARM Cortex-M0+ based microcontroller. In the linker script, I have a section allocated for the stack which roughly looks like the following. .stack : { . += __stack_size__; } > ram Using the linker in the gcc arm toolchain, arm-none-eabi-ld, this section is automatically set to type NOBITS, however, when linking with version 10.0.0 of ld.lld, the

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

Martin Richtarsky <s at martinien.de> writes: > Rafael Avila de Espindola wrote: >>> I will retry with clang trunk, when it reproduces I will build some >>> other >>> large project (that has DSOs) using our compile/link options (they are >>> not >>> that special, I think). >> >> If you can try lld trunk too that would be awesome.

Hi, Yes, ldd is generating wrong tbss size. It is just considering one tbss section and not calculating all sections from all objects. The following example on x86_64 shows the issue: --- t0.c --- #include <stdio.h> extern __thread int t0; extern __thread int t1; extern __thread int t2; extern __thread int t3; __thread int t4; __thread int t5; __thread int t6; __thread int t7; int

Hi, I am tracking some TLS issues with lld and found that it is generating wrong tbss size for case where multiple modules have non initialized threads variables. For instance: -- t0.c -- __thread int x0; __thread int x1; __thread int x2; extern __thread int e0; extern __thread int e1; extern __thread int e2; extern __thread int e3; int foo0 () { return x0; } int main () { return x0; }

+llvm-dev properly this time. On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 at 09:42 James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote: > Hi Reid, all, > > +llvm-dev as this RFC involves changes in Clang and LLVM. > > This RFC has stagnated and I think that's partially because the proposal > isn't particularly elegant and is light on details. We've been having a > rethink and have a

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

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

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

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

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

[ This patch depends on the cross-architecture ELF cleanup patch. ] 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

[ This patch depends on the cross-architecture ELF cleanup patch. ] 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

Hi Andrew, Thanks for the background and context. "In your issue, just to clarify, is the ELF output from LLD also "large", or is it just the output from the llvm-objcopy operating on that ELF that is "large"? Do you have a simple sample to demonstrate this issue?" The ELF size is actually smaller, compared to what was generated from LLVM 7.x. (~900Kb vs

I re-wrote the compile script to build klibc (cleaning up how I do it, and how to find the source tarballs). It seems to be compiling fine. I tried several of the commands in usr/utils/static and most one. However, the sleep command fails in a strange way (EINVAL on execve): ================================================================ faraday/phil /home/phil/klibc-project-0 581> strace

Hello all, I'm trying to install Gentoo 1.4 rc2 for the first time on my laptop - HP Omnibook 5700ctx, P166, 128 MB RAM which cannot boot from CD-ROM. Apparenty Gentoo doesn't have a boot disk making utility. It's said that I must use tomsrbt or a slackware boot disk but I have none of those. & someone on Gentoo mailing list pointed out that I should try syslinux, Ok,

Hi, I just updated from r190763 to r191137 and started getting failures in generated assembly language when debug info is enabled. Here is the test case: // Compile and run for every target. // RUN: %ecc -g -o %t %s && %t // FAIL: %armecc -g -o %t %s && %armrun %t // FAIL: %armebecc -g -o %t %s && %armebrun %t // RUN: %i386ecc -g -o %t %s && %i386run %t // FAIL:

Hi I am writing a freestanding statically linked x86_64 kernel. And now I want to load and use thread-local storage. As I have a freestanding binary I can't use libc/Linux kernel thread-local mechanism and need to implement initialization code by myself. I am trying to find a clear explanation of what is the memory layout for x86 TLS but can't find anything useful. Maybe LLVM developers

Hi all, I'm toying around with LLVM's GC support and am struggling with the following. I have a little test snippet (a .ll file with IR) that uses llvm.gcroot to mark a GC root, but when I compile it to assembly with llc, followed by generating an executable with gcc I get an error related to exception handling: 22:40|melis at juggle2:~/projects/llvm_gc> cat root.ll %obj = type { i8*,