Hi Alex,
Hi Jon,
I now re-did everything from scratch, in a new clean ongoing test, and
I
think the results are now more what you had expected. The error messages
were now just this:
sed: 1: x86-64.darwin.base.s: extra characters at the end of x command
Ah, OK, this makes sense.
It
Hi Jon,
Using sed -i'' 's/@plt//' x86-64.darwin.base.s did not delete the @plt
Hmm, so let's give up inplace-editing with 'sed'.
We can use three commands instead: Move the '*.s' file to some temporary
file, and then 'sed' to remove the '@plt's:
mv x86-64.darwin.base.s
Hi Jon,
I now re-did everything from scratch, in a new clean ongoing test, and I
think the results are now more what you had expected. The error messages
were now just this:
sed: 1: x86-64.darwin.base.s: extra characters at the end of x command
Ah, OK, this makes sense.
It seems that 'sed'
Hi Jon,
and send me the resulting main.s?
...
See attached file.
Thanks! Looking at it, it seems a long way to go ...
Besides the @plt issue, there are other differences. For example,
symbol names are prefixed with an additional underscore.
But let's start with the first step, removing the
Hi Jon,
Sorry for the delay, but here are the errors I got after I appended the
'sed' calls (see attachted file). I'm not shure if there's a big
difference, but you may spot something ...
Indeed. No difference at all
...
x86-64.darwin.base.s:1957:junk `@plt' after expression
Hi Jon,
I've now got an answer to my question at
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6384961/osx-gnu-assembler-problem-with-call-fooplt
Nice.
Matthew Slattery says:
..
1. PLT is an ELF concept, but OS X uses a completely different
object / executable file format - Mach-O.
Hi Alex,
Hi Jon,
What helps in such cases is usually writing code snippets in C, compile
them to assembly code (the -S option to gcc), and study that.
..
I think this sounds like something to try. Do you have any
suggestions for code snippets in C that can be useful?
OK. Perhaps the most
Hi,
I wanted to look at the old problem of building 64-bit PicoLisp on Mac OS
X. Assemblers are far from what I usually play with, but at least I'd like
to spend a few hours today on this problem.
From what I've found on the net, I got the impression that the standard
(?) assembler on OSX is
I thougt PicoLisp used its' own assembler?
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:24:05AM +0200, Jon Kleiser wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to look at the old problem of building 64-bit PicoLisp on Mac OS
X. Assemblers are far from what I usually play with, but at least I'd like
to spend a few hours today on
Hi Alex,
Hi Jon,
I wanted to look at the old problem of building 64-bit PicoLisp on Mac
OS
Great! :)
..
I hope this gives you some hints to get started. We can try to tackle
this together once we find out what exactly goes wrong.
Cheers,
- Alex
It's probably best to continue this on
Hi Jon,
It's probably best to continue this on IRC. I have some other business for
about one hour. I'll log in when I'm ready.
OK, fine. See you!
Cheers,
- Alex
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Hi Jakob,
I thougt PicoLisp used its' own assembler?
Well, yes and no.
The assembly language PicoLisp is written in, is its' own. It is
described in http://software-lab.de/doc64/asm; (language and virtual
CPU architecture).
The build procedure (triggered by the script src64/mkAsm) translates
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:02:23PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
As far as I remember, the only remaining problem was not that of the
assembler, but of the linker, or, more correctly, the final output file
format.
The last time we discussed it here was:
13 matches
Mail list logo