From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17170 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2002 19:31:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17151 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2002 19:31:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Apr 2002 19:31:49 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16sU0S-0006md-00; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 14:31:48 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 11:31:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: Daniel Berlin , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Let dwarf2 CFI's execute_stack_op be used outside of CFI Message-ID: <20020402143148.A26046@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , Daniel Berlin , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:28:12PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > Daniel Berlin writes: > > > It may well be overengineered. A libdwarf is indeed what I had in > > > mind; I thought it might be nice to start putting together the pieces > > > for it. > > > > 1. The existing libdwarf is now LGPL'd, so it would be easier to just use > > that, if you wanted a dwarf reader (in fact, this is what the majority of > > consumers do use). > > It would make more sense to just implement what's missing (it contains no > > macro info reading, and no generic location expression support). > > 2. Ulrich Drepper has the beginnings of a GPL'd libdwarf already that > > works pretty well. > > Does Uli's libdwarf have an expression evaluator? > > > I'll do it, i'm just concerned we are thinking of duplicating a library > > for the sake of duplicating a library. > > :) > > I didn't know about the existing libdwarf, or Uli's. It would be nice > to start using those, if we can. And I'll bet if the interfaces are > troublesome for GDB, then Uli would be happy to change it. I didn't know that the existing libdwarf had been LGPL'd; the copy on SGI's site certainly hasn't been, but that's a bit old. However, it's exceedingly unlikely we could get the copyright assigned to the FSF. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer