| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
I think it is clear by now that the new linker is viable.
llvm-svn: 262158
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
These functions are "constructors" of the LinkingContexts. We already
have auxiliary classes and functions for ELFLinkingContext in the header.
They fall in the same category.
llvm-svn: 234082
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
What we are doing in ELFTarget.h was dubious. In the file, we define
partial classes of <Arch>LinkingContexts to declare only static member
functions. We have different (complete) class definitions in other files.
They would conflict if they exist in the same compilation unit (because
the ones defined in ELFTarget.h has only static member functions).
I don't think this was valid C++.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D8797
llvm-svn: 234039
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In r233772, I removed an empty class, DefaultTargetHandler, from
the class hierarchy by merging the class with TargetHandler. I then
found that TargetHandler and its base class, TargetHandlerBase,
are also almost the same.
We need to go deeper.
In this patch, I merged TargetHandlerBase with TargetHandler.
The only difference between them is the existence (or absense)
of a pure virtual function registerRelocationName(). I added that
function to the (new) TargetHandler.
One more thing is that TargetHandler was templated for no reason.
I made it non-templated class.
llvm-svn: 233773
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 232861
|
|
|
llvm-svn: 230594
|
