From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12645 invoked by alias); 8 May 2008 18:47:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 12634 invoked by uid 22791); 8 May 2008 18:47:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 May 2008 18:47:16 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B29983F1; Thu, 8 May 2008 18:47:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE6B98011; Thu, 8 May 2008 18:47:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JuB96-00085B-Ol; Thu, 08 May 2008 14:47:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 20:22:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kees Cook Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: status of PIE support? Message-ID: <20080508184712.GA30676@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Kees Cook , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080508054526.GG12850@outflux.net> <20080508173720.GA26555@caradoc.them.org> <20080508181905.GL12850@outflux.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080508181905.GL12850@outflux.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg00287.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 11:19:05AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > - the submitter has to be able to justify any line of the patch that > > does not make sense to the reviewer > > This is probably where I'd get hung up, shouting "it's magic!" :) > > > time to do it. A good way to handle bits you don't understand is > > to remove them and see what breaks; often this isn't practical, > > but when it is it's a sign of good tests :-) > > Yeah, I assume that I'll end up learning gdb internals eventually, and be > a bit more helpful then, but that won't be in the near-term. That said, > it's been 5 years since Elena Zannoni's original work, so I'm hoping > some folks will step up and help review the existing patches with me -- > they clearly have some merit. Right. Basically, speaking only for myself (but as the most active patch reviewer), I have really little time for GDB that isn't specifically related to my day job. Enough of that job is related to GDB that this isn't always apparent. So I like helping people understand the code and I'm glad to answer questions... but I like my own projects, too, so it takes a really long time to get things nailed down if you can't find someone besides me to help :-) Fortunately there's an increasing number of active developers on the lists over the last year. I'm thrilled by that. So maybe someone else will be able to step up to help you, or maybe the patches will be clear enough to me that I can help quickly. Anyway. The clear place to start is first, make sure the copyright issue is out of the way if it isn't already. Then see if you can identify any bits of the patches that stand independently and make sense to you, and submit those as individual patches. Unfortunately this isn't a great part of GDB to get your introduction in... I took a quick look through the patch; I'm not immediately convinced about some of the design choices (which doesn't mean they're wrong, but does mean they aren't obviously correct). The amd64 and varobj parts I do not see the connection to the rest of the patch. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery