https://maskray.me/blog/2022-01-16-archives-and-start-lib
For every definition in an extracted archive member, we intern the symbol twice,
once for the archive index entry, once for the .o symbol table after extraction.
This is inefficient.
Symbols in a --start-lib ObjFile/BitcodeFile are only interned once because the
result is cached in symbols[i].
Just handle an archive using the --start-lib code path. We can therefore remove
ArchiveFile and LazyArchive. For many projects, archive member extraction ratio
is high and it is a net performance win. Linking a Release build of clang is
1.01x as fast.
Note: --start-lib scans symbols in the same order that llvm-ar adds them to the
index, so in the common case the semantics should be identical. If the archive
symbol table was created in a different order, or is incomplete, this strategy
may have different semantics. Such cases are considered user error.
The `is neither ET_REL nor LLVM bitcode` error is changed to a warning.
Previously an archive may have such members without a diagnostic. Using a
warning prevents breakage.
* For some tests, the diagnostics get improved where we did not consider
the archive member name: `b.a:` => `b.a(b.o):`.
* `no-obj.s`: the link is now allowed, matching GNU ld
* `archive-no-index.s`: the `is neither ET_REL nor LLVM bitcode` diagnostic is
demoted to a warning.
* `incompatible.s`: even when an archive is unextracted, we may report an
"incompatible with" error.
---
I recently decreased sizeof(SymbolUnion) by 8 and decreased memory usage quite a
bit, so retaining `symbols` for un-extracted archive members should not cause a
memory usage problem.
Reviewed By: peter.smith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119074
Some lit tests that call llvm-ar use the 'r' flag. If the target archive
already exists and is in a corrupt state, this can cause the test to fail. We
have added 'rm -f' calls before the llvm-ar calls to increase the
robustness of the tests.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49184
llvm-svn: 338705
Noticed while testing for an out of tree target. There are probably more tests that should be so marked.
I'm not sure who owns these tests so I've added a few names I recognise from the recent history.
With advice from probinson, ruiu, rafael and dramatically improved by davidb. Thank you all!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34685
llvm-svn: 308335
lld differs from GNU ld in that it does not have a built-in default
target emulation. Emulation is always specified via the -m option, or
obtained from the object file(s) being linked. In most cases at least
one ELF object is included in the link, so the emulation is known.
When using lld's (not yet committed) -b binary support with -r, to
convert a binary file into an ELF object we do not have a known
emulation. The error message previously emitted in this case
"-m or at least a .o file required" is accurate but does not offer
much insight. Add text to the error message to give a hint why -m or an
object file is required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24348
llvm-svn: 280989
Fangrui Song