From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23994 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2002 19:46:44 -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 23928 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2002 19:46:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (64.246.6.106) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Apr 2002 19:46:40 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by dberlin.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g32Jkdm05719; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 14:46:39 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 11:46:00 -0000 From: Daniel Berlin To: Daniel Jacobowitz cc: Jim Blandy , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Let dwarf2 CFI's execute_stack_op be used outside of CFI In-Reply-To: <20020402143148.A26046@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > 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. Very old, actually. ftp://ftp.sgi.com/sgi/dev/davea/libdwarf2001May23.tar.gz is the latest around. > However, it's > exceedingly unlikely we could get the copyright assigned to the FSF. So? --Dan